std-unix@ut-sally.UUCP (Moderator, John Quarterman) (02/05/86)
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 86 07:19:30 PST
>From: mordor!lll-crg!hoptoad!laura (Laura Creighton)
I think that while it might have been better if umask had worked this way from
the beginning, changing existing behaviour is a bad idea. You will burn
people who expect one behaviour and get another.
I am actually not sure that it is a good idea at all. The main reason I know
of that people want the proposal is so that they can have a varying levels of
protection and privacy without much effort. But if they really want privacy,
then they *should* be going to the effort -- this is the whole idea. If they
depend on the filesystem when they should be depending on themselves they are
going to get a rude surprise one day when their security is compromised.
I don't think that the current umask situation is broken. Why are we trying
to fix it?
[ See the following article by Dan Franklin. -mod ]
Laura Creighton
ihnp4!hoptoad!laura
hoptoad!laura@lll-crg.arpa
Volume-Number: Volume 5, Number 34