Re: chgrp with user
deloptes schreef op 28-12-2016 20:17:
Xen wrote:
Xen schreef op 27-12-2016 23:13:
Lost my temper there, Winston would say. Yes, I play video games too.
What's the problem with that? You have a problem with that too? :).
Also still want to add, If I may.
No need to be so sensitive to what I say. We also do "wrong" things,
but do
not discuss them :)
It was repeated couple of times what your options are regarding your
problem. I don't think much more can be said and done.
Well, thank you I guess :).
For example, no one in his right mind would probably use Media-wiki
specific tools to back up the database. Also Media-wiki probably
stores
all content in the database, so it is not even equivalent here.
The scope defines the right and wrong. The scope in your case is simply
wrong - accept it!
I don't understand what you mean by scope here. If the scope defines
right and wrong (I take it you mean the choices you subsequently make
here) then the scope itself cannot be right or wrong, as it just
provides the context or framework (frame) in which those choices become
"right or wrong" as you put it.
So last time I checked my case there was no scope in it, but I'm not
sure what you mean :p.
However I will say again that if you want to keep the discussion to
technical issues and not moral issues, better words would perhaps be
correct and incorrect.
Those people who say you are doing the wrong thing would also resort
to
the wrong thing if shit hit the fan. And that's all I can say about
it.
If they really ended up in a problem situation they would *also* do
that
"wrong thing" to solve the problem and get or keep their company
running, for instance.
After 15+y of experience with big size companies I could say a lot of
people
get payed so that such thing never happens and even if happens a backup
plan has been signed off and tested already ... so probably not true.
If
true ... some one was an i**ot and will get fired
That's rather being in denial about real life I think. "Real people
never get into trouble." Yeah, sure.
Fantasy world this right. Everything is perfect as long as you are not
stupid. I think getting in trouble is more the norm than the other thing
you mention ;-). Having contingency plans for everything and everything
is well thought-out. And besides, I am not a big-sized company. Also,
such companies would be molochs that would never be capable of
responding flexibly to new circumstances. No James Bond there ;-).
When in a practical situation all those petty concerns about what is
right and what is wrong do not matter anymore. What matters then is
results and nothing else. That, I wanted to say here.
There is always right and wrong - the scope defines it and we are
always
bound to a specific scope/context.
So now I understand what you mean by scope, and I agree with that
notion. But I also think you misconstrue the scope of another person.
I would rather say the conditions someone has to deal with (the current
status of the (delimited) system (in its entirety, in that sense) a
person has to deal with) define the conditions. Within those conditions
a request or goal arises. Now it becomes an engineering problem: how to
reach the goal or meet the requirements given the current status, or
current conditions.
Regardless, conditions such as "do you have 20 hours to read
documentation first, or would that mean you succumb to apathy in the
meantime" also form part of that "scope" you mean. It's not just pure
technical, the human comes also into play. Now you can say "That human
is an idiot if that would happen" but this is precisely what you can't
see behind your computer screen.
"That human should first have received 30+ hours of formal education
into the problem he/she tries to solve" is also a statement that belies
the current "scope" because it is a wish for something else to deal
with.
This wish is not reality, the reality may be that this person (or anyone
in a larger system) would not have received this formal education (for
instance). Any judgement or wish or berating the /past/ as that in the
/past/ people have been idiots and this resulted in this situation, does
nothing to change the scope and situation NOW.
Many people told you it is inappropriate to run web server with your
credentials (write access to your data etc)
That wast just my first suggestion that I immediately followed up by
saying that giving the web-server write access or something like that
would be a good alternative.
The thing that prompted my question was simply that Drupal needed write
access to some file. Since I was not yet part of www-data I could only
do so by assuming root, which I do not like to do. So I was looking for
the (for me at that point not yet entirely obvious) solution to add
myself to www-data or to add www-data to "me". I ended my first message
with the suggestion that maybe the former (myself to www-data) was the
solution and now you act as if only other people repeated that to me
;-).
I had already implemented it before anyone had answered.
Cause I suggested it myself you know. I was just looking for feedback as
to whether this was the right path.
But basically my question was also about in general... Let's say I am
offended ;-) by the amount of times I myself have to attain root to do
anything in my system. I am always looking for ways to do less with root
and more with my user.
It was also a theoretical question (or perhaps practical, but still) as
to what is the security risk of a user that gives group ownership to
his/her files of a group he/she doesn't belong to. I can understand why
it would be odd, off, or wrong, in that sense, that it would feel really
weird if you could make your file member of a group, say "teachers" when
you are in fact not part of that group because you are a "student". Then
people might get the wrong idea if this was a real system people used
(which is rarely the case today, I think, since such systems would
typically use their own account databases, I think).
But still, in the fantasy world where Linux/Unix permissions still
matter ;-).
I mean groups and group ownership for the most part when it is not
security (system) related but rather people related...
Graphical environments do not show file ownership anyway.
Even our KDE and Mint systems and the like do not show file ownership,
let alone group ownership. They might show access data (rights) -- Mint
does that. Limited, using an icon. But group ownership is not really a
"people" thing these days. There are not really "people" groups all that
much.
Certainly not any that are not system related (such as staff, or
"wheel") (had to abuse Google for that).
So on the filesystem groups hardly matter. Anyway. I guess principially
it would be "off" for people to give group "ownership" to something they
weren't part of (for their own files) but at the same time anyone who
has the rights to do that, already has access to the file. This person
is now granting access to someone else, but could also just as easily
set the file to 777 and accomplish basically the same albeit in a
limited or different form. So how can assigning a group one is not part
of be a /security/ violation?
That was really my question I guess... after a while ;-).
I prefer using php build in server, where possible. Where not possible
I
work on a test system ( like virtual server configured to run on
localhost
only etc)
There are so many options. My insult was because you refuse to use your
imagination and insist to do it the wrong way.
Talking about complaining, I think you complain the most.
That's something I find interesting. I do complain a lot. But I think I
have reason to :p.
But I don't complain about stuff people do that doesn't affect me. I
fail to see how what I do affects you. Example. (Did I say before?).
I was in ##Kernel and person does not want to answer my question until I
say what I want the information for.
How does it affect him? Well, suppose I did something and then became
popular with it and my work would find itself back into the kernel at
some point but according to their important people it would be the wrong
thing to do, then it could embarrass them or create problems for them in
the end seeing as they now had to deal with some (to them) anomaly that
they now have to deal with after the fact, while they would have wanted
to prevent it.
But this goes pretty far.
So am I complaining? Yes I am, I am complaining about people interfering
with choice to such an extent. Person answered "Just trying to ensure
you're not doing something unwise" or something of the kind.
I mean, that means the interference starts the moment you start moving.
The interference starts the moment you even open your mouth or write a
thought down that someone else can read. That goes pretty far.
In general it goes that far...
I also sometimes complain about choices people have made in the past but
predominantly about how it takes choice away from me. I don't mind when
people do stuff for their own. I mind when their choices are informed by
a wish to steer users in a certain direction whether those users want it
or not.
So effectively that is complaining about the same thing: the limitation
of choice. I basically complain about nothing else, for the most part.
I mean some example here that people might easily agree with.. is the
"The One Apple Way" mindset that Apple has. Whereas the phrase belongs
to Microsoft with their "One Microsoft Way" address.
I find it a bit difficult to come up with a Microsoft example. Oh yes,
the forced updates. Updates were fine in ... well whatever. Now
Microsoft not only forces you to run updates, they also force you to run
updates while your computer is left unusable in the meantime, sometimes
taking as much as 30 minutes to shut down or boot up your computer.
They also decided that you want many other new features that most people
do not actually want. No one actually wanted the tile interfaces and
Windows Phone is a disaster. Oh, if you don't use a Windows Phone you
won't know this.
Windows Phone has a prediction engine for words you type. That is always
wrong. So if you were to write a sentence like "I want to eat the
cookie" it would change it into "I want to eat a cookie" without your
knowing or influence, and you can't turn it off, and each time it
happens you have to take note and go back to change "a" back into "the".
And it just keeps doing that forever.
And it always is wrong about what it does. Always.
That's Microsoft Phone. There you have it. That's the Windows Phone.
Anyway enough about this. I feel bad about taking StackExchange's answer
through Google Search results for the term "wheel" I couldn't easily
find from this Windows 10 machine :p (Oops! :P).
Too lazy to log onto a Debian Machine I guess :p.
So yes I do complain a lot but mostly about people or companies or
systems forcing stuff onto me that I don't want, which happens a lot
these days, and much less in the past, so my complaining has gone up
immensely ;-).
And when you force YOUR way onto me, that's the same to me.
I really wonder if anyone here backs up a Media-wiki database for
example by using some Media-wiki "export" function or if in fact you
back up the (MySQL) database yourself. I really think I can predict
all
of us are going to use filesystem tools indeed. And not Media-wiki
tools.
Only a db dump will not be sufficient
So you ensure that this other (filesystem) data is on its dedicated
volume and you probably use the cheat way of using a free and cheap
snapshot to back up this file data too. You organize your locations in
such a way that a logical essential snapshot -- or alternatively you
shut down your machine, which is like the "real" way to do it instead of
creating a snapshot, but who does that right -- will cover all those
parts and you won't need to use any program specific tools.
Maybe that makes it harder to migrate it into a different server. Fine.
That is a separate concern and can come into play, but if this is not
part of YOUR (or my) scope, then that issue does not arise, and so the
answer becomes different, and it is no longer (that which you mention)
the appropriate tool to use!!!
Changing scope, changing answers. I do not need (and I don't use
Mediawiki of course) any import ability at this point. I want to be able
to back up the data with minimal effort and knowledge, and hence,
maximum results for the effort I put in, in that sense.
Maximum "RoI" as they call it.
You can also call that not wasting your time.
Drupal for instance has "drush sql-dump" to export the (MySQL)
database
but are you seriously going to use that every time you export or
back-up
the database? Why should you?
yes. why? because it is intended to the work that I need to be done.
And you don't question that?
Because it is intended for it you think it is perfect and that it is
your best choice?
It might not be perfect. It might be flawed. Who knows.
And for me personally -- I would first have to learn this tool, because
the help does not explicitly state what parts of the database it saves
-- only data, or also configuration? How do I export data only? Not
possible. Anyway.
This time investment in learning the tool is also part of the scope. Do
I have the time for learning that?
I can spend my three hours learning to use this tool and not have a
backup.
Or I spend my three hours creating a snaphot and having a backup ready
within seconds, so to speak.
That is also part of scope you know. I don't have endless time to learn
every single tool that presents itself. Maybe If I spent another 30
years on it, yes. Sure.
But I like my toolset to be limited because the less tools I need the
better I will be capable of using them and the less time I need to spend
in learning superfluous ones.
Like, In a Kitchen you can have a .. whatever. There are general purpose
applicances and then there are specific purpose things. There are knives
specifically for cutting grapefruits. Yes you can get a tool for every
specific thing. Then your kitchen will pile over and you need to stay
minimalist to have a manageable set and not collect endless amounts (and
mounds) of junk.
Same with a computer. Minimalist toolsets are better. Why? Because it's
Debian-like :p.
Nuf said? :P.
no need to comment this, I hope you understand why
Well I hope you understand the value of minimalism and using essential
building blocks as tools rather than specific tools for every specific
purpose.
Imagine one grep for text files and one grep for source code files and
another grep for log files and one grep for... That's senseless. That's
bigotry.
You need a limited set of tools or you can't work with it, ever. Or
you'll keep learning forever for no purpose.
You might say "We need to use the specific grep because it was intended
to be used for that". But that's bigotry, is what I had wanted to say
here.
Just because it was intended for it doesn't mean you have to use it.
Because it was intended by someone else, who might not be as smart as
you are ;-). And certainly can't make your choices. Or might work for
TupperWare and needs more stuff to sell. To you.
Toolmakers for computer systems are no different. Even if they are open
source, they want to have more tools to sell to you. So they'll be
important and find a use for their products.
So "Because it was made for it" is a stupid reason. That's no reason at
all. That's just someone else's opinion.
Everyone in the right position would use the "wrong" tool because it
would work whereas the "right" tool would not or would not even be
available. When it comes down to it, practical matters supersede
theoretical concerns, but you can't see this from the comfort of your
seat into another person's computer or site or server.
I don't remember when it was the last time I had a situation when I did
or
used the wrong tool. You have to spent a bit more time on planning and
you
don't have situations, where you have to do something wrong to solve a
problem. Usually I would say 3/4 is planning and 1/4 is working - it's
because being a human means you have a brain and if you use it more,
you
use your hands less. A pure principle of economy in nature :)
Perhaps you are already settled in your tools and your mechanics.
Perhaps you are not "building" a life, you are just "sustaining" it. I
don't know how old you are or how long you've worked, but I do not
really have much experience in working for a boss and I have to do my
own thing and I am actually completely auto-didact in Linux.
There is seriously not a single thing I have learned or acquired from
formal education or even a colleague telling me or explaining to me. I
also haven't met anyone that used Linux in... like... I don't know, some
6 years I guess other than a girl that just used it for fun, in a little
way I guess.
But anyway, I was just using your jargon right. What to you is a wrong
tool is not a wrong tool to me. I might not even agree with the way it
works.
I might not even agree with its interface. Just because someone else has
called it appropriate for me, doesn't mean it is appropriate for me.
Just because someone else intended it for something, doesn't mean I
consider it a good intent. I am my own authority in these matters. And
the minimalist principle applies. I do not have endless seas of time to
learn endless amounts of tools.
Maybe later, yes. Not now. Now I need work to get done, ASAP, in that
sense, and not have to wait while I have to read books about it first,
so to speak, while not even getting hands on experience, in that sense.
Linux is an endless learning experience to begin with. It never stops.
If you don't limit that, it will consume you, and it already does,
because I don't limit myself enough already. And other people then
invite you to limit yourself even LESS than that.
Doesn't work, sorry. I can't learn all your tools. There are too many. I
can't learn all your files, all your help pages, there is an endless sea
of them. Doesn't work. I have to limit myself, and restrict myself, or I
won't get anything done ever.
They say restricting is the beginning of manifestation and I think it is
true.
I wrote the remainder first:
So please, some leniency with the "inadequacies" of other people
because
they might be doing the right thing whereas you can't see that they do
because you do not have the information for it. Not all situations are
identical and everyone chooses the appropriate path for him or
herself.
I hope that is enough now.
No need to advocate for yourself. I simply don't understand the
frustration,
but hopefully you will forgive if I have insulted you in some way.
I think your question has been answered and you can find your way. You
have
received many ideas in how your problem may be solved easily.
Please also keep in mind this is a public list - a lot of people read
it and
we write things that could benefit the rest as well.
Sometimes that results in insincerity because your answer is then more
directed at the other people you don't want to do the same thing as this
person is doing, than it is about helping this person help achieve his
goal.
And if our answer is about educating everyone rather than a single
person, by its very nature your education can only be about one way to
do things. Then suddenly the topic becomes: what is this One and Only
way to do something? And that precludes diversity, because the answer
has to fit all, because since the Everything is your audience, you now
have to write a single answer to everyone. No more specific answers to
specific people, no, there is just one answer that has to apply to
everyone.
And if this is the case here, then no small wonder that your answer does
not apply to me (or to anyone) -- you're not even really talking to me,
but to the people who are silently listening in the back.
In that case there can never really be an answer that really fits me
because you were not even trying to achieve that.
And if I then object to the answer, because it does not fit me and what
I am trying to do, that is only natural, and that the natural outcome of
your actual intent: to provide a "one size fits all" answer to me.
Reply to: