So, nobody agree the idea of a "smart" sharing app'?
2012/10/18 Nicolas Michel
> 2012/10/18 Jordon Bedwell
>
>> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Nicolas Michel
>> wrote:
>> > To be honnest I never gave a try to Ubuntu One, probably for bad
>> > conservative reasons. I will try it. But I still
2012/10/18 Jordon Bedwell
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Nicolas Michel
> wrote:
> > To be honnest I never gave a try to Ubuntu One, probably for bad
> > conservative reasons. I will try it. But I still feel that even if you're
> > right that pushing things into the cloud make things simpler
On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 4:31 AM, Nicolas Michel
wrote:
> To be honnest I never gave a try to Ubuntu One, probably for bad
> conservative reasons. I will try it. But I still feel that even if you're
> right that pushing things into the cloud make things simpler, there are
> still some flaws :
Most
To be honnest I never gave a try to Ubuntu One, probably for bad
conservative reasons. I will try it. But I still feel that even if you're
right that pushing things into the cloud make things simpler, there are
still some flaws :
- what if we don't have access to internet and only want to share on
> Nicolas Michel writes:
> Honnestly, nobody never understood these pretty technical concepts of
> permissions (I mean usual end-users, not us that are talking on a dev
linux
> distrib mailing-list).
+1
> To go further, I think "sharing" should even not be implemented int
I think that the wizard should also be "smart enough" to asks questions
related to the content to share. Example, if you want to share a video or
an audio file, maybe it's best to share it via DLNA if the viewer is on the
same LAN. Then it needs to ask a question like :
- do you want to share the v
I agree that there should be something done on the UI to support ACL on
Ubuntu (not like eiciel). But I really don't agree when you say that
Windows is already doing it well!
Honnestly, nobody never understood these pretty technical concepts of
permissions (I mean usual end-users, not us that are t
On 10/17/2012 06:43 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
On 12-10-17 05:45 PM, John Moser wrote:
On 10/17/2012 05:34 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
On 12-10-17 03:52 PM, John Moser wrote:
First, he must find the sysadmin. The sysadmin must then put wriker
in group jkirk. Also, ~jkirk must be group-
On 12-10-17 05:45 PM, John Moser wrote:
>
>
> On 10/17/2012 05:34 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
>> On 12-10-17 03:52 PM, John Moser wrote:
>>>
>>> First, he must find the sysadmin. The sysadmin must then put wriker
>>> in group jkirk. Also, ~jkirk must be group-readable, as must any
>>> files.
>>
On 10/17/2012 05:34 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
On 12-10-17 03:52 PM, John Moser wrote:
First, he must find the sysadmin. The sysadmin must then put wriker
in group jkirk. Also, ~jkirk must be group-readable, as must any
files.
In a default Ubuntu installation, jkirk's files are already a
Doesn't look integrated into the default UI. Workable, but not quite
intuitive. Things I'd prefer:
- Shows the user and group ownership, instead of piling them is as
just part of the ACL. Remember these have special meanings for SUID/SGID.
- First three ACL entries are always Owner, Grou
On 12-10-17 03:52 PM, John Moser wrote:
>
> Let's first assume we have three users:
>
> jkirk
> ksingh
> wriker
>
> Now, let's say any of these wants to give any of the others access to
> his files in general (i.e. his $HOME). Let's for our example say
> jkirk wants wriker to have access.
>
>
It's called eiciel
--
Matt Wheeler
m...@funkyhat.org
On 17 Oct 2012 21:15, "John Moser" wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:52 PM, John Moser
> wrote:
> > First: that's why we need an interface that handles POSIX ACLs
> > properly, long-overdue.
> >
>
> It actually occurs to me that this is pro
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 3:52 PM, John Moser wrote:
> First: that's why we need an interface that handles POSIX ACLs
> properly, long-overdue.
>
It actually occurs to me that this is probably not just technically
important, but important for planning purposes. That is, we can sit
here arguing al
you know KISS?
> So ACL works well. But it's really more complicated to use than UGO and
> surely to understand who has which access to what. Trust me it can be really
> hard to get it with complex configurations.
>
> So I would say : why use a complex solution for a simple need?
&g
I would say : why use a complex solution for a simple need?
Regards,
Nicolas
2012/10/17 John Moser
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Marc Deslauriers
> wrote:
> > On 12-10-17 09:59 AM, John Moser wrote:
> >> I suggest all users should go into group 'users' as the
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:44 AM, Marc Deslauriers
wrote:
> On 12-10-17 09:59 AM, John Moser wrote:
>> I suggest all users should go into group 'users' as the default group,
>> with $HOME default to 700 and in the group 'users'. A umask of 027 or
>>
>
> To modify the groups a user is in, you must have administrative access
You can use gpasswd -A to delegate group administration to a non-superuser.
And the main reason of User Private Group (UPG) is that makes it easy to
create directories for collaboration.
2012/10/17 John Moser
> On Wed,
On 12-10-17 09:59 AM, John Moser wrote:
> I suggest all users should go into group 'users' as the default group,
> with $HOME default to 700 and in the group 'users'. A umask of 027 or
> the traditional 022 is still viable: the files in $HOME are not
> vis
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:05 AM, Jordon Bedwell wrote:
>
> The problem with this is how are you going to fix permissions on bad
> software like Ruby Gems who do not reset permissions when packaging
> and uploading to the public repository (because they claim this would
> "violate security" even t
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 8:59 AM, John Moser wrote:
> I suggest all users should go into group 'users' as the default group,
> with $HOME default to 700 and in the group 'users'. A umask of 027 or
> the traditional 022 is still viable: the files in $HOME are not
>
quires administrator mediation.
I suggest all users should go into group 'users' as the default group,
with $HOME default to 700 and in the group 'users'. A umask of 027 or
the traditional 022 is still viable: the files in $HOME are not
visible because you cannot list the con
22 matches
Mail list logo
