Re: should not specify default group for users

[gk4@us.ibm.com]

>So what does group "users" give you that the "o" bits don't?

 The "o" bit is for those being excluded from the "users" member group or
the individual "gk4" ownership.   A file is only owned by one person and in
one group.   If all of my files are in my own personal "gk4" group, then I
reduce the file access functionality that I would have had with group
"users".

% touch foo
% chmod 006 foo
% date > foo

George Kraft IV
gk4@us.ibm.com
512-838-2688; t/l 678-2688
IBM Linux Technology Center & Linux Standards


"H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@transmeta.com> on 03/22/2000 12:56:40 PM

To:   George Kraft/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
cc:   Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net>, lsb-spec@lists.linuxbase.org
Subject:  Re: should not specify default group for users




gk4@us.ibm.com wrote:
>
> >Debian uses 002 and the "what a waste" user method. Having only lived in
> >this environment, I don't see the advantages of the 022 system. Aside
from
> >"wasting" a, sometimes large, number of groups, why is 022 "superior"?
>
> Dale,
>
> Being in group "users" allows me to turn on and off the group bits
without
> bothering the system admin.   Being in my own group "gk4" requires that I
> contact the system admin to add people to my group "gk4" to create a
> mediated group access list.   Umask 022 versus 002 is implied by being in
> group "users" or group "gk4" respectively.
>
> The question is, do we want to specify users/022 for scripts,
pre-install,
> and post-install?   If not, then delete it from the LSB specification;
> otherwise, we need to take a stand on one or the other and I contend that
> users/022 is the norm.  :-)
>

So what does group "users" give you that the "o" bits don't?

     -hpa