Lutz Lange wrote:
i was thinking about user creation and group administration. Every user
gets his own private group when he is created. And the motivation for
that is to avoid users sharing files with all other users to per default
right?
Not exactly. Having your own private group assigned from the start
makes it possible to use a default umask that gives group access to your
files without actually giving anyone else access yet. That means
when/if you do want to let someone else have access, you don't have to
go back and change the permissions on all your existing files and
directories.
tux@somewhere ~> vi .bashrc
umask 077
Don't forget to compliment the bits. The default umask 002 gives group rwx.
All right it might not be in my best interest to share something in my
home dir, or if i do i have to be very careful about the permissions
there...
No, the point of the private group is to permit access to everything
that is yours. If you don't want that, make a new group with the
appropriate set of users added and use that group ownership instead of
your own.
But i still thinks a user should be in control of his private group.
)
But he is not. This has to be set explicitly by the entity that creates
the user. I wonder what the reasoning is/was behind that.
Why is a user not made administrator of his private group per default?
Think of common multiuser scenarios - like an office or school.
Individuals are typically not in charge of their collaborative groups -
that will be assigned by someone else.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
