Timeline for Reasons behind the default groups and users on Linux
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 17, 2020 at 9:50 | history | edited | ctrl-alt-delor | CC BY-SA 4.0 | spelling (because it is not ID...s (e.g. ID its). It is just a plural. plurals don't have apostorphies. |
| Sep 21, 2014 at 1:55 | comment | added | eyoung100 | That would be correct, but a lot of people don't manage Groups correctly if they are home users. I can't verify this for sure, but I believe the maintainers created the option in order to shore up the permissions management. | |
| Sep 20, 2014 at 14:07 | comment | added | Horgix | @ECarterYound for the first part : I see what you mean about access protection, and correct me if I'm wrong but having all users in a users group should not be a problem with proper rights management on groups, that is not giving strictly the same rights to the group than the owner. So the only good point of having USERGROUPS_ENAB turned on is to have an easier maintainance since it allows you to keep default rights when creating files and directories while still having restricted access for other users ? | |
| Sep 20, 2014 at 1:05 | comment | added | muru | Nice hypothetical, but a fail. 1. Default permissions are usually masked 022, which means others have read access anyway. 2. The sysad is not only lazy, but incompetent, since he should have created groups according to the department and assigned the correct group during account creation, instead of assigning all to some group. The USERGROUPS_ENAB should remain turned off then. Disabling USERGROUPS_ENAB != putting all users in the same group. | |
| Sep 19, 2014 at 22:13 | history | edited | eyoung100 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Changed Period to Question Mark |
| Sep 19, 2014 at 20:41 | history | edited | eyoung100 | CC BY-SA 3.0 | Updated Wording |
| Sep 19, 2014 at 20:34 | history | answered | eyoung100 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |