Re: should not specify default group for users
> Who's standard do we adopt? Ninty-nine does not seem large enough for uid
> growth. What about the gid range?
Customers want <100
> In addition to your admin uid <= 99 proposal, should there be an admin
> range for gids?
Customers want <100
Do we allocate a range very high in 32bit uid space as well ? Discuss 8)
> Being raised BSD in a SysV world, I've always assumed a umask of 022. :-)
Being raised in the non academic world I assume a umask of 077.
> With regard to the LSB specification we should be narrowly focused on the
> local filesystem and the POSIX APIs and not give much regard to NFS, AFS,
> DFS, or LDAP ACLs. We should be concerned about the affects umask has on
> open, mkdir, chmod, and exec. System admin's can do what ever they like;
> however, there should be a default behavior (ie., 022).
We should be narrowly focused. And when you consider the narrowness of focus
then we shouldnt be specifying this at all. It doesn't matter if I am right
or you are right - its end user policy, its going to vary and therefore
applications have to work regardless. Therefore we gain nothing but annoyed
users by specifying it..
Reply to: