From: "Sascha Retzki" <sretzki@gmx.de>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] group permission
Date: Mon, 31 Jul 2006 22:37:59 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <eae11900f9c096283ccd2c5ce215eb67@mail.gmx.net> (raw)
Got a nice collection...
> For the rest of the world, collaboration facilities must be managed as
> offices are managed. The ACL is analogous to the list of individuals who
> have keys to a particular facility. In this situation the teacher needs
> to own and control the drop slot, a "device" within the office to which
> he/she controls the ACL and into which users can place files that can
> only be read by the owner/manager of the room. Relying upon users to
> create and manage groups for this kind of thing is not realistic.
I think the 'group owner' is the one you are looking for. Besides chgrp allowed for regular users, I still think the group-owner-thing rocks and it should be there. (I actually just read about 'group owners' once, loved the idea, and expected the tools to exist.. they don't? :(( )
> There is another solution.
>
> Bob can create a directory, say /bob/submit,
> and make it group bob and mode 777.
> Then alice and carol can each run
> mkdir /bob/submit/$user
> chmod 770 /bob/submit/$user
> and put their files in that new directory,
> which is owned by them but has group bob.
I don't think that is a solution - but a nice workarround ;)
(Not to think about explaining two pupils, office clerks, $whatever for the millionth time how that actually works)
> Nothing terrible might happen but the current design is a
> well-considered choice. I'd like to be won over by a technical
> argument before sanctioning a change.
I think creating a real interface instead of making the users use 'tricks' is simply the right thing. At least to a certain degree.
Yes I agree, that 'degree' may be something different to you ;)
If that does not satisfy you:
Maybe that sounds stupid, but what is a 'technical' argument then?
> Maybe it's a holdover from Unix worth
> getting rid of. It's almost certainly a one-line change
> to fossil.
great. :)
> The right solution is probably a way to talk to a file
> server to create a new group (owned by the
> user who created it) and also to edit existing groups,
> subject to the documented permissions.
Sorry, one last thing: There must be an intermediet step that I miss, why create new groups (is that a DoS? Create new groups in a for-loop, named pretty much the same, to make maintaince-time extra expensive?)?
Mfg, Sascha
next reply other threads:[~2006-07-31 20:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2006-07-31 20:37 Sascha Retzki [this message]
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2006-07-30 12:47 arisawa
2006-07-30 13:06 ` Sascha Retzki
2006-07-30 15:40 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2006-07-30 18:25 ` csant
2006-07-30 19:39 ` Russ Cox
2006-07-30 21:18 ` arisawa
2006-07-30 22:07 ` Russ Cox
2006-07-31 3:35 ` Skip Tavakkolian
2006-07-31 14:37 ` Russ Cox
2006-07-31 22:17 ` arisawa
2006-07-31 15:04 ` Victor Nazarov
2006-07-31 15:34 ` Wes Kussmaul
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=eae11900f9c096283ccd2c5ce215eb67@mail.gmx.net \
--to=sretzki@gmx.de \
--cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).