Article View: mod.std.unix
Article #181per directory umask
From: Moderator, John Quarterman
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1986 21:12
Date: Tue, 04 Feb 1986 21:12
24 lines
1608 bytes
1608 bytes
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 07:19:30 PST >From: mordor!lll-crg!hoptoad!laura (Laura Creighton) I think that while it might have been better if umask had worked this way from the beginning, changing existing behaviour is a bad idea. You will burn people who expect one behaviour and get another. I am actually not sure that it is a good idea at all. The main reason I know of that people want the proposal is so that they can have a varying levels of protection and privacy without much effort. But if they really want privacy, then they *should* be going to the effort -- this is the whole idea. If they depend on the filesystem when they should be depending on themselves they are going to get a rude surprise one day when their security is compromised. I don't think that the current umask situation is broken. Why are we trying to fix it? [ See the following article by Dan Franklin. -mod ] Laura Creighton ihnp4!hoptoad!laura hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa Volume-Number: Volume 5, Number 34
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<4117@ut-sally.UUCP>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!std-unixShow Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ut-sally.UUCP Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!std-unix From: std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman) Newsgroups: mod.std.unix Subject: per directory umask Message-ID: <4117@ut-sally.UUCP> Date: Tue, 4-Feb-86 16:12:33 EST Article-I.D.: ut-sally.4117 Posted: Tue Feb 4 16:12:33 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 5-Feb-86 03:29:58 EST Organization: IEEE/P1003 Portable Operating System Environment Committee Lines: 24 Approved: jsq@sally.UUCP