LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Desktop
User Name
Password
Linux - Desktop This forum is for the discussion of all Linux Software used in a desktop context.

Notices



Reply
 
Search this Thread
Old 11-12-2009, 04:31 PM   #16
lwasserm
Member
 
Registered: Mar 2008
Location: Baltimore Md
Distribution: ubuntu
Posts: 184

Rep: Reputation: 41

Building on what exvor has said, a group can be designated for file sharers. A user can then create a subdirectory in his $HOME, and set the group to the sharers group. If the setgid bit is set on this directory, files created there will also have the same group. Then anyone in the sharers group can access another users shared directory and its files.
 
Old 11-13-2009, 05:16 AM   #17
S.Lowhand
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by lwasserm View Post
Building on what exvor has said, a group can be designated for file sharers. A user can then create a subdirectory in his $HOME, and set the group to the sharers group. If the setgid bit is set on this directory, files created there will also have the same group. Then anyone in the sharers group can access another users shared directory and its files.
lwasserm,

Hmmm... I guess this is the most practical way forward. Shame it can't be done in a cleaner fashion though. It's quite a big ask for a newb.

I'm going to implement this asap. May have to come back for more detailed help :-)

S

Last edited by S.Lowhand; 11-13-2009 at 05:22 AM.
 
Old 11-13-2009, 05:21 AM   #18
S.Lowhand
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by evo2 View Post
It's 755 not 777. Others can read, not write.

There are many things that Ubuntu does that I consider weird, but to me this one seems pretty normal.

Evo2.
evo2,

You don't think it's weird that all and sundry can wonder around inside your account and check out anything they wish to have a look at !?! :-)

I also don't get the logic behind specifically naming a directory 'Public' when all folders are public. It's really counter-intuitive for a Win-convert.

Anyway... I'm getting on my hobby-horse...

Really appreciate all the kind suggestions given.

S
 
Old 11-13-2009, 05:52 AM   #19
evo2
Guru
 
Registered: Jan 2009
Location: Japan
Distribution: Mostly Debian and Scientific Linux
Posts: 5,591

Rep: Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244Reputation: 1244
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Lowhand View Post
evo2,

You don't think it's weird that all and sundry can wonder around inside your account and check out anything they wish to have a look at !?! :-)
No I really don't. If you are worried about that, then you can lock the door and close the curtains. I guess I come from a different background. The first computers I used didn't have user accounts or passwords: Apple 2e, dos machines etc. Anyone could just boot them up and do whatever they wanted.

The next machines I used were DEC Alpha. These were mutli user machines, workstations and servers that you connected to with XTerminals. You data was safe from being corrupted by others since you had your own account and only you or the sys admin could modify your files. Why hide your files by default? They were never hidden on the old single user operating systems.

If for some reason you did have something to hide, you could hide it. And if you really wanted to hide it so even the sys adim couldn't see it you pgp encrypt it.

Quote:
I also don't get the logic behind specifically naming a directory 'Public' when all folders are public. It's really counter-intuitive for a Win-convert.
Oh, that's so that other users know exactly where to look when you have something specific you want them to see. Much easier than having to tell them exactly where it is.

Cheers,

Evo2.
 
Old 11-14-2009, 04:32 AM   #20
S.Lowhand
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
evo2,
Quote:
Originally Posted by evo2 View Post
No I really don't. If you are worried about that, then you can lock the door and close the curtains. I guess I come from a different background. The first computers I used didn't have user accounts or passwords: Apple 2e, dos machines etc. Anyone could just boot them up and do whatever they wanted.

The next machines I used were DEC Alpha. These were mutli user machines, workstations and servers that you connected to with XTerminals. You data was safe from being corrupted by others since you had your own account and only you or the sys admin could modify your files. Why hide your files by default? They were never hidden on the old single user operating systems.

If for some reason you did have something to hide, you could hide it. And if you really wanted to hide it so even the sys adim couldn't see it you pgp encrypt it.


Oh, that's so that other users know exactly where to look when you have something specific you want them to see. Much easier than having to tell them exactly where it is.

Cheers,

Evo2.
I guess that's it really. It's what you're used to. I started with computers using Mac OS7, which, as you say, is an environment where anyone who boots the box controls it completely.

These days people are brought up on multi-user boxes, Windows primarily, which consider privacy as important as security. I personally think this is a sensible approach.

*Given* that the modern approach is that things are private by default, I feel the Linux way is out of sync and is, to me at least, a major hindrance to wider adoption by the Windows crowd. Things move on. If Linux is to be seen to be an OS for non-geeks, it needs to take on board some of the basic expectations users have these days. (No, I don't mean expectations regarding crashes and Viruses ;-)

BTW, you've really put me out of considerable misery by explaining the 'Public' folder naming. I still think it's crazy but at least I can see *some* logic there :-)

S
 
Old 11-14-2009, 05:42 AM   #21
mwildam
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2006
Location: Vienna, Austria
Distribution: Fedora 13, Ubuntu 10.04
Posts: 52

Rep: Reputation: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Lowhand View Post
*Given* that the modern approach is that things are private by default, I feel the Linux way is out of sync and is, to me at least, a major hindrance to wider adoption by the Windows crowd.
My experience is that at home when switching to Linux a few years ago I had more issues with files being not available (mostly just not editable). Before on our home PC with Windows all the fotos and other files were in a "work" folder which was full accessible for everyone. Folders you create on C:\ for instance have full access for everyone by default on Windows (at least it used to be on XP and earlier).

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Lowhand View Post
Things move on. If Linux is to be seen to be an OS for non-geeks, it needs to take on board some of the basic expectations users have these days. (No, I don't mean expectations regarding crashes and Viruses ;-)
I agree with you partly only. For instance I really don't want Linux to adopt some Windows GUI "features" just because people expect such a behaviour. - People often expect a particular behaviour just because they are (already) used to it (why I am just remembering the nonsense of the need to click on "Start" to shut down the computer...).

Quote:
Originally Posted by S.Lowhand View Post
BTW, you've really put me out of considerable misery by explaining the 'Public' folder naming. I still think it's crazy but at least I can see *some* logic there :-)
Apart from the strange "Public" folder naming I start to like that default security.

Usually I only have a few private stuff - that is basically my PGP private keys - hey and guess what - I noticed that they have not the world readable attributes. So it seems that is quite ok.

But: I think in an office where probably several secretaries are sharing the same PC things are a little different. But company IT will get the security changed in such cases...
 
Old 11-17-2009, 04:51 AM   #22
S.Lowhand
LQ Newbie
 
Registered: Jul 2009
Posts: 14

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 0
mwildam,

Quote:
Originally Posted by mwildam View Post
My experience is that at home when switching to Linux a few years ago I had more issues with files being not available (mostly just not editable). Before on our home PC with Windows all the fotos and other files were in a "work" folder which was full accessible for everyone. Folders you create on C:\ for instance have full access for everyone by default on Windows (at least it used to be on XP and earlier).
I can't speak for Windows but on my OSX box there is a 'Shared' folder. Anything that you want to share you drop in there. Simple.

Quote:
I agree with you partly only. For instance I really don't want Linux to adopt some Windows GUI "features" just because people expect such a behaviour. - People often expect a particular behaviour just because they are (already) used to it (why I am just remembering the nonsense of the need to click on "Start" to shut down the computer...).
Definitely with you there :-) The list of Windows/OSX features which Linux can learn from is pretty short but I really do think the privacy aspect is on there.

Quote:
Apart from the strange "Public" folder naming I start to like that default security.

Usually I only have a few private stuff - that is basically my PGP private keys - hey and guess what - I noticed that they have not the world readable attributes. So it seems that is quite ok.
I just can't see why good security/privacy is mutually exclusive to ease of sharing and 'Having documents available'. It's as simple as having Private Homes and a 'Shared' Folder.

At the moment we get an extreme where anyone can look at anything, unless you are savvy enough to make the changes necessary. Most people aren't that savvy and I personally don't think they should have to be as it would be so simple to have a setup which covers all the bases.

In this day and age I think it's madness to assume a 'Safe Environment', as is the present case. I would personally veer towards as 'As secure/private as is reasonably possible' as a default. Of course it's easy to become an extremist there as well ;-)

S
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
automatically inherit parent folder permissions when copying files teixeira Linux - Newbie 3 07-08-2008 01:21 PM
Automatically set permissions of new files created within a specific folder Lorian Linux - Desktop 2 03-03-2007 04:17 PM
Setting default permissions for folder dickohead Linux - General 1 04-17-2006 10:55 AM
FOLDER permissions change automatically Echo Kilo Linux - Newbie 5 08-21-2005 04:09 AM
Default permissions of files and folder maginotjr Slackware 2 07-29-2005 04:52 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:49 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration