[SM-Discuss] [SM-Users] [Cauldron] - 0.9.6 x86 ISO in rc1 - PPC coming soon
dkowis at shlrm.org
Mon Mar 6 17:08:19 EST 2006
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Jeremy Blosser (emrys) wrote:
> On Mar 06, Eric Sandall [eric at sandall.us] wrote:
>> On Sun, 5 Mar 2006, Karsten Behrmann wrote:
>>>> The possibility to add new user is great. :-)
>>>> IMHO, the default group should be named identically to login
>>>> (lace:lace). Now it uses "users" by default.
>>> Hmm... I'm not quite sure I'd personally agree with that. Wasn't the
>>> purpose of group permissions to be a bit more granular that per-user?
>>> It would make sense to give or take permissions to/from "all other human
>>> users" or something, but why would you want group permissions for a group
>>> that only you are in? Sure, there is root:root for normal files, but except
>>> for that one I kindof don't see the purpose in one-user groups...
>>> Feel free to disagree with me.
>> I believe the standard is <username>:users, as there is a users group
>> in /etc/group and, IMO, it'd be silly to populate /etc/group with a
>> group account for each user.
> There are at least two "standards" for this. Using a single "users" group
> is older, but using a group per user has become very common since RedHat
> popularized it several years ago. Google 'per-user groups' to see some of
> the reasons why it's useful. The big one is that it allows users to have
> more granular control of their files, since if the only group a user has
> access to is "users" they have to go all or none when letting others access
> their files, but if they each get their own group they can get people added
> to it and maintain a useful distinction between group and world access.
> That having been said, and even though I greatly prefer per-user groups
> myself, different admins still prefer it different ways. IMO we should
> therefore default to the option that has the least impact on the system,
> and that's one "users" group. It's easier to move from that to per-user
> groups than the reverse. Though if someone wanted to add this as a system
> option in the installer I think it would be a nice touch and in the SMGL
The useradd (or is it adduser) script creates by default a group for
each user. I would think it'd be good to follow that default, as that's
what I would use to create a new user. However, if opinions differ we
can leave it as is. I also greatly prefer per-user groups, for the
record anyway :)
ISO Team Lead - www.sourcemage.org
Progress isn't made by early risers. It's made by lazy men trying to
find easier ways to do something.
- Robert Heinlein
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
- Arthur C. Clarke
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the SM-Discuss