On Monday, 20 בFebruary 2006 15:58, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:58:20PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> > On Monday, 20 �February 2006 12:46, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > > On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:03:22AM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> > >
> > > This naturally assumes that the user doe
Yedidyah Bar-David wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:58:20PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
>>> This naturally assumes that the user does not install a private copy
>>> of the app. Which is a bit tougher in the case of firefox. And
>>> frankly even in the case of OpenOffice. Both are rather
>>> self-co
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:58:20PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> On Monday, 20 בFebruary 2006 12:46, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:03:22AM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> > This naturally assumes that the user does not install a private copy
> > of the app. Which is a bit tougher in
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 01:58:20PM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> > This naturally assumes that the user does not install a private copy
> > of the app. Which is a bit tougher in the case of firefox. And
> > frankly even in the case of OpenOffice. Both are rather
> > self-contained.
>
> Its the same p
On Monday, 20 בFebruary 2006 12:46, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:03:22AM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> > On Friday, 17 �February 2006 21:38, Omer Zak wrote:
> > > In another Linux related mailing list, to which I am subscribed,
> > > there is a discussion about the remaining road
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 02:03:22AM +0200, Oded Arbel wrote:
> On Friday, 17 בFebruary 2006 21:38, Omer Zak wrote:
> > In another Linux related mailing list, to which I am subscribed,
> > there is a discussion about the remaining roadblocks on the route of
> > widespread adoption of Linux by busines
On Friday, 17 בFebruary 2006 21:38, Omer Zak wrote:
> In another Linux related mailing list, to which I am subscribed,
> there is a discussion about the remaining roadblocks on the route of
> widespread adoption of Linux by businesses.
> Turns out that IE has configuration options, which allow the
On Sun, Feb 19, 2006 at 10:23:35AM +0100, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 03:30:14PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:37:47PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> >> Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> >>> However, when a directory is protected, then t
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006, Oron Peled wrote about "Re: Helping Linux move into
business: FireFox vs. IE":
> On Saturday, 18 �February 2006 02:24, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> > ... Why on earth does the bookmarks file
> > have world execute (or read, for that matter) access?
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 03:30:14PM +0200, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:37:47PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>> Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> However, when a directory is protected, then the files inside it are
>>> protected as well.
>> Not quite true.
> [EMAIL
On Fri, Feb 17, 2006, Omer Zak wrote about "Helping Linux move into business:
FireFox vs. IE":
>...
> However, when business grows beyond the 5-people stage and needs its own
> sysadmin and system administration policies, it becomes necessary for
> the sysadmin to be able to
Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 13:37 +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
>> Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Maybe you could modify files because the other user, which you used,
> belonged to the same group?
That's what I wrote before.
--
Oleg Goldshmidt | [EMAIL
On Saturday, 18 בFebruary 2006 02:24, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> ... Why on earth does the bookmarks file
> have world execute (or read, for that matter) access?
> ...
> -rwxr-xr-x 1 oleg users 182626 Jan 16 16:06 bookmarks.html
What is your umask? Maybe you simply have umask of 022 (very
common c
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 02:24:49AM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > users can be prevented from changing home page,
>
> Out of curiosity: what exactly does this contribute to workstation
> security?
Security is, as we all know, a noble goal for which peo
On Sat, Feb 18, 2006 at 01:37:47PM +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > However, when a directory is protected, then the files inside it are
> > protected as well.
>
> Not quite true.
>
> For instance, I just did a quick check. While the actual profile
On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 13:37 +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
> > However, when a directory is protected, then the files inside it are
> > protected as well.
>
> Not quite true.
>
> For instance, I just did a quick check. While the actual profile
> direc
Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> However, when a directory is protected, then the files inside it are
> protected as well.
Not quite true.
For instance, I just did a quick check. While the actual profile
directory is 700, the upper level directories (e.g.,
~/.mozilla/firefox) are group-
On Sat, 2006-02-18 at 02:24 +0200, Oleg Goldshmidt wrote:
> Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > users can be prevented from changing home page,
>
> Out of curiosity: what exactly does this contribute to workstation
> security?
It does not contribute to workstation security per se, but mak
Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> users can be prevented from changing home page,
Out of curiosity: what exactly does this contribute to workstation
security?
Another thing I just did out of curiosity was to check permissions on
various files in the default Firefox profile on my home comput
In another Linux related mailing list, to which I am subscribed, there
is a discussion about the remaining roadblocks on the route of
widespread adoption of Linux by businesses.
It was said that for 1-person business, Linux is now very good solution.
However, when business grows beyond the 5-peopl
20 matches
Mail list logo
