Path: csiph.com!v102.xanadu-bbs.net!xanadu-bbs.net!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!news-1.dfn.de!news.dfn.de!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Rainer Weikusat <rweikusat@mobileactivedefense.com>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system
Subject: Re: shred or scrub
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 12:17:03 +0100
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <874n1dwvo0.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com>
References: <limvgj$tse$1@dont-email.me> <slrnlkvkrl.2p2.kristof@vega.codepro.be> <liqmp7$4md$1@dont-email.me> <liqsf7$6sg$1@dont-email.me> <liri6m$tk9$1@dont-email.me> <lj393j$iha$1@dont-email.me> <lj5fs8$49k$1@dont-email.me> <lj6p5h$m0g$1@dont-email.me> <lj89en$q2a$1@dont-email.me> <ljbt7r$5bc$1@dont-email.me> <ljdbhe$ol8$1@dont-email.me> <87k3adxomn.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com> <ljg06q$f5s$1@dont-email.me> <87wqear01o.fsf@sable.mobileactivedefense.com> <ljl6uh$rbi$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: individual.net Q/orlH3PyOznrneVoH5JngnCnNcWLf1oK1vtNI66P0wsW2OcA=
Cancel-Lock: sha1:26JrkcRrJJTADfgr4CPyMU/cIfw= sha1:r8xxiun6RXZeNXYoM4MkMIK3Bas=
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.2 (gnu/linux)
Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.development.system:663

crankypuss <crankypuss@nomail.invalid> writes:
> On 04/27/2014 02:26 PM, Rainer Weikusat wrote:

[...]

>> As already mentioned above, locking isn't needed for concurrent read
>> accesses. Also, group access rights have other uses. A common one would
>> be 'allowing all members of a group read or read/write access to some
>> filesystem objects or filesystem objects but deny them the ability to
>> change the permissions'. This will usually mean a file owned by root in
>> a directory owned by root whose 'group access permissions' permit the
>> intended access, eg, a file storing a database access password needed by
>> some processes.
>
> If you to need to continue arguing toward winning a debate, you'll
> have to do that without my participation.  I'm not interested in
> winning debates, I'm interested in better software, which imo includes
> moving past the archaic furniture that linux inherited from unix.

As I already wrote in the other post, I'm not really argueing, more
pointing out facts which are (or - to me - at least seam to be) at odds
with what you've been writing. If you were interested in something other
than "winning the debate", you'd either admit that you were wrong or
explain what I didn't understand and thus, got wrong, instead of
asserting that "whoever mentions something which doesn't find into your
agenda is Surely Evil[tm]/ interested in bad stuff for nefarious
purposes".