Re: Naming convention flames

[Ken Snider <ksnider flarn com>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Robert P. J. Day wrote:

| then why would you make "doe" a member of "staff" in the first place?

Envision a "staff" only directory with ten files within. Nine of the ten
should be writable by all members of staff, save one, which should be writable
to everyone but user x.

Should I make a new subgroup for "staff" now that includes everyone but x?
Does that paradigm carry forward if another file needs to be writable by x but
NOT by y (and creating yet another group)?

Further, anytime you want a file to be written to by two different groups of
people, you have to create a union group of the two and have the file written
to by said new gid.

I don't think the above is sustainable. expand that scenario out to N and you
have good reasons for ACL's.

- --
Ken Snider
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFAbZLHJz/2kL0fCRgRApxGAJ9DKLVUJf8iWVbxk7E6RPdgNSUCCwCfQ+Qb
tswmkjxYcivBhp+MMPHFSds=
=Nnjy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----