From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <775b8d190801282128p3fc1d3ffm719f71574c1a6c3b@mail.gmail.com> Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 16:28:23 +1100 From: "Bruce Ellis" To: "Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs" <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] the meaning of group In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: Topicbox-Message-UUID: 3c6f1b26-ead3-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 think about what you said. you don't understand the auth model. glad to see that you are still replying to everything and generate 40% of the traffic on 9fans. i'm with maht. this is not a "i couldn't be bothered" blog. yes, this is not a love song... brucee On Jan 29, 2008 10:35 AM, erik quanstrom wrote: > On Mon Jan 28 18:01:00 EST 2008, forsyth@terzarima.net wrote: > > > without any agreed-upon or secure arbiter of groups which tracks centralized > > > information, this does not seem like a good idea to me. > > > > `centralised' information? > > > > i assume you'd have to be hostowner to load it, so it's up to the host-owner process that loads it what it > > regards as `adequately reliable' data. on a cpu server, it can be consistent with the user names associated with > > processes on that system. that's not centralised though: it's a local convention. > > i don't mean coordiated outside our site. perhaps i didn't make that clear. > > what you're saying sounds like, say, putting some configuration in /rc/bin/cpurc. > the problem is that this information needs to be updated across all cpu servers > more often than everything is rebooted. > > perhaps a file on /srv/boot could be given to the fs which could be opened to check > group permission? too cute? > > - erik >