From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 07493df1 for ; Fri, 2 Aug 2019 19:00:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 4E2589BADE; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 05:00:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BB50C9BA7E; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 05:00:20 +1000 (AEST) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 95D709BA7E; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 05:00:17 +1000 (AEST) Received: from firemail.de (firemail.de [144.76.63.194]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECC5E9B84E for ; Sat, 3 Aug 2019 05:00:14 +1000 (AEST) Received: from firemail.de (firemail.de [144.76.63.194]) by firemail.de (b1gMailServer) with ESMTP id 2729EDF2 for ; Fri, 02 Aug 2019 21:00:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2019 21:00:12 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <76a8b8144de199f3ef3234fae998566e@firemail.de> X-Mailer: b1gMail/7.3.0 X-Sender-IP: 84.149.189.169 From: "Thomas Paulsen" To: "Clem Cole" In-Reply-To: References: <201908011235.x71CZP2B035023@tahoe.cs.Dartmouth.EDU> <201908020835.x728ZUal026532@freefriends.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline Subject: Re: [TUHS] Additional groups and additional directory permissions X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Thomas Paulsen Cc: tuhs@tuhs.org Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" isn't Kirk McKusic a member of our group? Guess he can contribute a lot on this issue. --- Ursprüngliche Nachricht --- Von: Clem Cole Datum: 02.08.2019 15:28:18 An: Aharon Robbins , Doug McIlroy Betreff: Re: [TUHS] Additional groups and additional directory permissions > The best I can tell/remember is that groups went through 4 phases: > 1.) No groups (earliest UNIX) [ I personally never used this except in the > > V0 retrocomputing] > 2.) First group implementation (Thompson) [My first UNIX introduction was > > with this implementation] > 3.) PWB 1.0 (Mashey version) [then saw this post PWB] > 4.) BSD 4.2 (wnj version) [and lived this transistion] > > Each was a little different in semantics. > > As Doug mentioned, many sites (like Research) really did not need much and > > groups were really not used that widely. Thompson added something like > > the Project number of TOPS and some earlier systems. Truth is, it did not > > help much IMO. It was useful for grouping things like the binaries and > > keeping some more privileged programs from having to be setuid root. > > Mashey added features in PWB, primarily because of the RJE/Front end to the > > Mainframes and the need to have better protections/collections of certain > > items. But they still were much more like the DEC PPN, were you were > running as a single group (i.e. the tuple UID/GID). This lasted a pretty > > long time, as it worked reasonably well for larger academic systems, where > > you had a user and were assigned a group, say for a course or class, you > > might be talking. If you looked at big 4.1 BSN Vaxen like at Purdue/Penn > > State, *etc.*, that how they were admin'd. But as Doug said, if you were > > still a small site, the use of groups was still pretty shallow. > > But, as part of the CSRG support for DARPA, there was a push from the > community to have a list of groups that a user could be a part and you > carried that list around in a more general manner. The big sites, in > particular, were pushing for this because they were using groups as a major > > feature. wnj implemented same and it would go out widely in 4.2, although > > >>by memory<< that was in 4.1B or 4.1C first. It's possible > Robert Elz > may have brought that to Bill with his quota changes, but frankly I've > forgotten. There was a lot of work being done to the FS at that point, > > much less Kirk's rewrite. > > But as UNIX went back to workstations, the need for a more general group > > system dropped away until the advent widely used distributed file systems > > like CMU's AFS and Sun's NFS. Then the concept of a user being in more > than one group became much more de rigeur even on a small machine. > > Clem >