15 Jan
2014
15 Jan
'14
4:44 a.m.
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:00 AM [GMT+1=CET], John Cowan wrote:
SZIGETI Szabolcs scripsit:
I don't think quotas are dead. It seems nowadays the "preferred" storage
backend for email on Unix/Linux mail servers is Maildir, and Maildir uses
the
filesystem as its own backend, together with the filesystem's quota facility
to give or take storage space to/from mailboxes -- yes, provided the users
are real system users and not "virtual users", but still.
What is "dead as the dodo" is multi-user shell access. But that does not
mean
multi-user shell access should be removed from modern systems, no matter how
dead it may be.
-Pepe.
Well, with the same reasoning, we don't need
passwords or protection
bits on files, since I can always take a piece of steel pipe and
beat the owner, until he gives out the data, so why bother?
More like beating my argument with a pipe than the owner.
Blocking chown for general users is one level of
several controls.
Its specific purpose was to make per-user quotas practical, but since
per-user quotas are as dead as the dodo, it no longer serves any known
purpose. 
15 Jan
15 Jan
7:33 a.m.
New subject: History of chown semantics
On Jan 14, 2014, at 3:44 PM, Pepe wrote:
On Tuesday, January 14, 2014 2:00 AM [GMT+1=CET], John
Cowan wrote:
Because it really isn't dead. Developers still use it.
Warner
SZIGETI Szabolcs scripsit:
I don't think quotas are dead. It seems nowadays the "preferred" storage
backend for email on Unix/Linux mail servers is Maildir, and Maildir uses
the
filesystem as its own backend, together with the filesystem's quota facility
to give or take storage space to/from mailboxes -- yes, provided the users
are real system users and not "virtual users", but still.
What is "dead as the dodo" is multi-user shell access. But that does not
mean
multi-user shell access should be removed from modern systems, no matter how
dead it may be. Well, with the same reasoning, we don't need
passwords or protection
bits on files, since I can always take a piece of steel pipe and
beat the owner, until he gives out the data, so why bother?
More like beating my argument with a pipe than the owner.
Blocking chown for general users is one level of
several controls.
Its specific purpose was to make per-user quotas practical, but since
per-user quotas are as dead as the dodo, it no longer serves any known
purpose. 
7:43 a.m.
New subject: History of chown semantics
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 11:44:22PM +0100, Pepe wrote:
What is "dead as the dodo" is multi-user
shell access. But that does not
mean
multi-user shell access should be removed from modern systems, no matter how
dead it may be.
It's not dead, it's just pining :)
I think organizations with a clue buy the biggest boxes they can and allow
multi user access for devs.
But with disk so bloody cheap and VMs working so bloody well, it's pretty
easy to spin up a VM and give it to some idiot who thinks they need root.
You know what it reminds me of? Eunice on a VAX running VMS. It seems like
Unix but you're the only one there. Sort of lonely. I liked running who
and seeing a bunch of people logged in. Run finger $boss and see if he
read your email.
--
---
Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitkeeper.com
8:13 a.m.
New subject: History of chown semantics
Larry McVoy scripsit:
But with disk so bloody cheap and VMs working so
bloody well, it's pretty
easy to spin up a VM and give it to some idiot who thinks they need root.
./configure or not, it's damned hard to install large amounts of software
without root. You can do it, but it's hard, especially if some of it
is really really expensive to build from source, since you're blocked
from using the distro's own install tool.
You know what it reminds me of? Eunice on a VAX
running VMS. It seems like
Unix but you're the only one there. Sort of lonely. I liked running who
and seeing a bunch of people logged in. Run finger $boss and see if he
read your email.
Most people who use Unix today are the only ones there. Someone should
really rewrite finger(1) to do something different.
--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
Monday we watch-a Firefly's house, but he no come out. He wasn't home.
Tuesday we go to the ball game, but he fool us. He no show up. Wednesday he
go to the ball game, and we fool him. We no show up. Thursday was a
double-header. Nobody show up. Friday it rained all day. There was no ball
game, so we stayed home and we listened to it on-a the radio. --Chicolini
10:02 a.m.
New subject: History of chown semantics
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 21:13:55 -0500, John Cowan wrote:
Larry McVoy scripsit:
How is this difficult? I've not had any problems that are
specific to the software not wanting to be installed as non-root.
You need to know some compiler flags like -R and ./configure
variables like CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, but other than that I've not
seen any problems that really stick out in my memory.
But with disk so bloody cheap and VMs working so
bloody well, it's pretty
easy to spin up a VM and give it to some idiot who thinks they need root.
./configure or not, it's damned hard to install large amounts of software
without root. You can do it, but it's hard, especially if some of it
is really really expensive to build from source, since you're blocked
from using the distro's own install tool. Most people who use Unix today are the only ones
there. Someone should
really rewrite finger(1) to do something different.
What do you do that this is the case? I'd literally be out of a
job if I didn't have a gaggle of users to look after. And so
would my entire team of coworkers. This is such a bewildering
claim to me and everyone I know that we can't fathom how it's
true.
--
Chris Nehren
10:39 a.m.
New subject: History of chown semantics
On Tue, 14 Jan 2014, Chris Nehren wrote:
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 21:13:55 -0500, John Cowan
wrote:
You'd be surprised. Over on hoshinet, we actually share Linux and FreeBSD
servers among each other. My virtual root has 2 actual users and the
server it's hosted on has 4 actual users.
-uso.
Larry McVoy scripsit:
How is this difficult? I've not had any problems that are
specific to the software not wanting to be installed as non-root.
You need to know some compiler flags like -R and ./configure
variables like CFLAGS and LDFLAGS, but other than that I've not
seen any problems that really stick out in my memory.
But with disk so bloody cheap and VMs working so
bloody well, it's pretty
easy to spin up a VM and give it to some idiot who thinks they need root.
./configure or not, it's damned hard to install large amounts of software
without root. You can do it, but it's hard, especially if some of it
is really really expensive to build from source, since you're blocked
from using the distro's own install tool. Most people who use Unix today are the only ones
there. Someone should
really rewrite finger(1) to do something different.
What do you do that this is the case? I'd literally be out of a
job if I didn't have a gaggle of users to look after. And so
would my entire team of coworkers. This is such a bewildering
claim to me and everyone I know that we can't fathom how it's
true.
3993
days inactive
3994
days old
5 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
Chris Nehren -
John Cowan -
Larry McVoy -
Pepe -
Steve Nickolas -
Warner Losh