Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > linux.debian.user > #176048

Re: chgrp with user

Show all headers | View raw

deloptes schreef op 28-12-2016 20:17:
> Xen wrote:
> 
>> Xen schreef op 27-12-2016 23:13:
>> 
>>> Lost my temper there, Winston would say. Yes, I play video games too.
>>> What's the problem with that? You have a problem with that too? :).
>> 
>> Also still want to add, If I may.
>> 
> 
> No need to be so sensitive to what I say. We also do "wrong" things, 
> but do
> not discuss them :)
> It was repeated couple of times what your options are regarding your
> problem. I don't think much more can be said and done.

Well, thank you I guess :).

>> For example, no one in his right mind would probably use Media-wiki
>> specific tools to back up the database. Also Media-wiki probably 
>> stores
>> all content in the database, so it is not even equivalent here.
>> 
> 
> The scope defines the right and wrong. The scope in your case is simply
> wrong - accept it!

I don't understand what you mean by scope here. If the scope defines 
right and wrong (I take it you mean the choices you subsequently make 
here) then the scope itself cannot be right or wrong, as it just 
provides the context or framework (frame) in which those choices become 
"right or wrong" as you put it.

So last time I checked my case there was no scope in it, but I'm not 
sure what you mean :p.

However I will say again that if you want to keep the discussion to 
technical issues and not moral issues, better words would perhaps be 
correct and incorrect.


>> Those people who say you are doing the wrong thing would also resort 
>> to
>> the wrong thing if shit hit the fan. And that's all I can say about 
>> it.
>> If they really ended up in a problem situation they would *also* do 
>> that
>> "wrong thing" to solve the problem and get or keep their company
>> running, for instance.
> 
> After 15+y of experience with big size companies I could say a lot of 
> people
> get payed so that such thing never happens and even if happens a backup
> plan has been signed off and tested already ... so probably not true. 
> If
> true ... some one was an i**ot and will get fired

That's rather being in denial about real life I think. "Real people 
never get into trouble." Yeah, sure.

Fantasy world this right. Everything is perfect as long as you are not 
stupid. I think getting in trouble is more the norm than the other thing 
you mention ;-). Having contingency plans for everything and everything 
is well thought-out. And besides, I am not a big-sized company. Also, 
such companies would be molochs that would never be capable of 
responding flexibly to new circumstances. No James Bond there ;-).


>> When in a practical situation all those petty concerns about what is
>> right and what is wrong do not matter anymore. What matters then is
>> results and nothing else. That,  I wanted to say here.
>> 
> 
> There is always right and wrong - the scope defines it and we are 
> always
> bound to a specific scope/context.

So now I understand what you mean by scope, and I agree with that 
notion. But I also think you misconstrue the scope of another person.

I would rather say the conditions someone has to deal with (the current 
status of the (delimited) system (in its entirety, in that sense) a 
person has to deal with) define the conditions. Within those conditions 
a request or goal arises. Now it becomes an engineering problem: how to 
reach the goal or meet the requirements given the current status, or 
current conditions.

Regardless, conditions such as "do you have 20 hours to read 
documentation first, or would that mean you succumb to apathy in the 
meantime" also form part of that "scope" you mean. It's not just pure 
technical, the human comes also into play. Now you can say "That human 
is an idiot if that would happen" but this is precisely what you can't 
see behind your computer screen.

"That human should first have received 30+ hours of formal education 
into the problem he/she tries to solve" is also a statement that belies 
the current "scope" because it is a wish for something else to deal 
with.

This wish is not reality, the reality may be that this person (or anyone 
in a larger system) would not have received this formal education (for 
instance). Any judgement or wish or berating the /past/ as that in the 
/past/ people have been idiots and this resulted in this situation, does 
nothing to change the scope and situation NOW.

> Many people told you it is inappropriate to run web server with your
> credentials (write access to your data etc)

That wast just my first suggestion that I immediately followed up by 
saying that giving the web-server write access or something like that 
would be a good alternative.

The thing that prompted my question was simply that Drupal needed write 
access to some file. Since I was not yet part of www-data I could only 
do so by assuming root, which I do not like to do. So I was looking for 
the (for me at that point not yet entirely obvious) solution to add 
myself to www-data or to add www-data to "me". I ended my first message 
with the suggestion that maybe the former (myself to www-data) was the 
solution and now you act as if only other people repeated that to me 
;-).

I had already implemented it before anyone had answered.

Cause I suggested it myself you know. I was just looking for feedback as 
to whether this was the right path.

But basically my question was also about in general... Let's say I am 
offended ;-) by the amount of times I myself have to attain root to do 
anything in my system. I am always looking for ways to do less with root 
and more with my user.

It was also a theoretical question (or perhaps practical, but still) as 
to what is the security risk of a user that gives group ownership to 
his/her files of a group he/she doesn't belong to. I can understand why 
it would be odd, off, or wrong, in that sense, that it would feel really 
weird if you could make your file member of a group, say "teachers" when 
you are in fact not part of that group because you are a "student". Then 
people might get the wrong idea if this was a real system people used 
(which is rarely the case today, I think, since such systems would 
typically use their own account databases, I think).

But still, in the fantasy world where Linux/Unix permissions still 
matter ;-).

I mean groups and group ownership for the most part when it is not 
security (system) related but rather people related...

Graphical environments do not show file ownership anyway.

Even our KDE and Mint systems and the like do not show file ownership, 
let alone group ownership. They might show access data (rights) -- Mint 
does that. Limited, using an icon. But group ownership is not really a 
"people" thing these days. There are not really "people" groups all that 
much.

Certainly not any that are not system related (such as staff, or 
"wheel") (had to abuse Google for that).

So on the filesystem groups hardly matter. Anyway. I guess principially 
it would be "off" for people to give group "ownership" to something they 
weren't part of (for their own files) but at the same time anyone who 
has the rights to do that, already has access to the file. This person 
is now granting access to someone else, but could also just as easily 
set the file to 777 and accomplish basically the same albeit in a 
limited or different form. So how can assigning a group one is not part 
of be a /security/ violation?

That was really my question I guess... after a while ;-).


> I prefer using php build in server, where possible. Where not possible 
> I
> work on a test system ( like virtual server configured to run on 
> localhost
> only etc)
> 
> There are so many options. My insult was because you refuse to use your
> imagination and insist to do it the wrong way.
> Talking about complaining, I think you complain the most.

That's something I find interesting. I do complain a lot. But I think I 
have reason to :p.

But I don't complain about stuff people do that doesn't affect me. I 
fail to see how what I do affects you. Example. (Did I say before?).

I was in ##Kernel and person does not want to answer my question until I 
say what I want the information for.

How does it affect him? Well, suppose I did something and then became 
popular with it and my work would find itself back into the kernel at 
some point but according to their important people it would be the wrong 
thing to do, then it could embarrass them or create problems for them in 
the end seeing as they now had to deal with some (to them) anomaly that 
they now have to deal with after the fact, while they would have wanted 
to prevent it.

But this goes pretty far.

So am I complaining? Yes I am, I am complaining about people interfering 
with choice to such an extent. Person answered "Just trying to ensure 
you're not doing something unwise" or something of the kind.

I mean, that means the interference starts the moment you start moving.

The interference starts the moment you even open your mouth or write a 
thought down that someone else can read. That goes pretty far.

In general it goes that far...

I also sometimes complain about choices people have made in the past but 
predominantly about how it takes choice away from me. I don't mind when 
people do stuff for their own. I mind when their choices are informed by 
a wish to steer users in a certain direction whether those users want it 
or not.

So effectively that is complaining about the same thing: the limitation 
of choice. I basically complain about nothing else, for the most part.

I mean some example here that people might easily agree with.. is the 
"The One Apple Way" mindset that Apple has. Whereas the phrase belongs 
to Microsoft with their "One Microsoft Way" address.

I find it a bit difficult to come up with a Microsoft example. Oh yes, 
the forced updates. Updates were fine in ... well whatever. Now 
Microsoft not only forces you to run updates, they also force you to run 
updates while your computer is left unusable in the meantime, sometimes 
taking as much as 30 minutes to shut down or boot up your computer.

They also decided that you want many other new features that most people 
do not actually want. No one actually wanted the tile interfaces and 
Windows Phone is a disaster. Oh, if you don't use a Windows Phone you 
won't know this.

Windows Phone has a prediction engine for words you type. That is always 
wrong. So if you were to write a sentence like "I want to eat the 
cookie" it would change it into "I want to eat a cookie" without your 
knowing or influence, and you can't turn it off, and each time it 
happens you have to take note and go back to change "a" back into "the".

And it just keeps doing that forever.

And it always is wrong about what it does. Always.

That's Microsoft Phone. There you have it. That's the Windows Phone.

Anyway enough about this. I feel bad about taking StackExchange's answer 
through Google Search results for the term "wheel" I couldn't easily 
find from this Windows 10 machine :p (Oops! :P).

Too lazy to log onto a Debian Machine I guess :p.

So yes I do complain a lot but mostly about people or companies or 
systems forcing stuff onto me that I don't want, which happens a lot 
these days, and much less in the past, so my complaining has gone up 
immensely ;-).

And when you force YOUR way onto me, that's the same to me.


>> I really wonder if anyone here backs up a Media-wiki database for
>> example by using some Media-wiki "export" function or if in fact you
>> back up the (MySQL) database yourself. I really think I can predict 
>> all
>> of us are going to use filesystem tools indeed. And not Media-wiki
>> tools.
>> 
> 
> Only a db dump will not be sufficient

So you ensure that this other (filesystem) data is on its dedicated 
volume and you probably use the cheat way of using a free and cheap 
snapshot to back up this file data too. You organize your locations in 
such a way that a logical essential snapshot -- or alternatively you 
shut down your machine, which is like the "real" way to do it instead of 
creating a snapshot, but who does that right -- will cover all those 
parts and you won't need to use any program specific tools.

Maybe that makes it harder to migrate it into a different server. Fine. 
That is a separate concern and can come into play, but if this is not 
part of YOUR (or my) scope, then that issue does not arise, and so the 
answer becomes different, and it is no longer (that which you mention) 
the appropriate tool to use!!!

Changing scope, changing answers. I do not need (and I don't use 
Mediawiki of course) any import ability at this point. I want to be able 
to back up the data with minimal effort and knowledge, and hence, 
maximum results for the effort I put in, in that sense.

Maximum "RoI" as they call it.

You can also call that not wasting your time.

>> Drupal for instance has "drush sql-dump" to export the (MySQL) 
>> database
>> but are you seriously going to use that every time you export or 
>> back-up
>> the database? Why should you?
>> 
> 
> yes. why? because it is intended to the work that I need to be done.

And you don't question that?

Because it is intended for it you think it is perfect and that it is 
your best choice?

It might not be perfect. It might be flawed. Who knows.

And for me personally -- I would first have to learn this tool, because 
the help does not explicitly state what parts of the database it saves 
-- only data, or also configuration? How do I export data only? Not 
possible. Anyway.

This time investment in learning the tool is also part of the scope. Do 
I have the time for learning that?

I can spend my three hours learning to use this tool and not have a 
backup.
Or I spend my three hours creating a snaphot and having a backup ready 
within seconds, so to speak.

That is also part of scope you know. I don't have endless time to learn 
every single tool that presents itself. Maybe If I spent another 30 
years on it, yes. Sure.

But I like my toolset to be limited because the less tools I need the 
better I will be capable of using them and the less time I need to spend 
in learning superfluous ones.

Like, In a Kitchen you can have a .. whatever. There are general purpose 
applicances and then there are specific purpose things. There are knives 
specifically for cutting grapefruits. Yes you can get a tool for every 
specific thing. Then your kitchen will pile over and you need to stay 
minimalist to have a manageable set and not collect endless amounts (and 
mounds) of junk.

Same with a computer. Minimalist toolsets are better. Why? Because it's 
Debian-like :p.

Nuf said? :P.

> no need to comment this, I hope you understand why

Well I hope you understand the value of minimalism and using essential 
building blocks as tools rather than specific tools for every specific 
purpose.

Imagine one grep for text files and one grep for source code files and 
another grep for log files and one grep for... That's senseless. That's 
bigotry.

You need a limited set of tools or you can't work with it, ever. Or 
you'll keep learning forever for no purpose.

You might say "We need to use the specific grep because it was intended 
to be used for that". But that's bigotry, is what I had wanted to say 
here.

Just because it was intended for it doesn't mean you have to use it. 
Because it was intended by someone else, who might not be as smart as 
you are ;-). And certainly can't make your choices. Or might work for 
TupperWare and needs more stuff to sell. To you.

Toolmakers for computer systems are no different. Even if they are open 
source, they want to have more tools to sell to you. So they'll be 
important and find a use for their products.

So "Because it was made for it" is a stupid reason. That's no reason at 
all. That's just someone else's opinion.


>> Everyone in the right position would use the "wrong" tool because it
>> would work whereas the "right" tool would not or would not even be
>> available. When it comes down to it, practical matters supersede
>> theoretical concerns, but you can't see this from the comfort of your
>> seat into another person's computer or site or server.
>> 
> 
> I don't remember when it was the last time I had a situation when I did 
> or
> used the wrong tool. You have to spent a bit more time on planning and 
> you
> don't have situations, where you have to do something wrong to solve a
> problem. Usually I would say 3/4 is planning and 1/4 is working - it's
> because being a human means you have a brain and if you use it more, 
> you
> use your hands less. A pure principle of economy in nature :)

Perhaps you are already settled in your tools and your mechanics. 
Perhaps you are not "building" a life, you are just "sustaining" it. I 
don't know how old you are or how long you've worked, but I do not 
really have much experience in working for a boss and I have to do my 
own thing and I am actually completely auto-didact in Linux.

There is seriously not a single thing I have learned or acquired from 
formal education or even a colleague telling me or explaining to me. I 
also haven't met anyone that used Linux in... like... I don't know, some 
6 years I guess other than a girl that just used it for fun, in a little 
way I guess.

But anyway, I was just using your jargon right. What to you is a wrong 
tool is not a wrong tool to me. I might not even agree with the way it 
works.

I might not even agree with its interface. Just because someone else has 
called it appropriate for me, doesn't mean it is appropriate for me. 
Just because someone else intended it for something, doesn't mean I 
consider it a good intent. I am my own authority in these matters. And 
the minimalist principle applies. I do not have endless seas of time to 
learn endless amounts of tools.

Maybe later, yes. Not now. Now I need work to get done, ASAP, in that 
sense, and not have to wait while I have to read books about it first, 
so to speak, while not even getting hands on experience, in that sense.

Linux is an endless learning experience to begin with. It never stops. 
If you don't limit that, it will consume you, and it already does, 
because I don't limit myself enough already. And other people then 
invite you to limit yourself even LESS than that.

Doesn't work, sorry. I can't learn all your tools. There are too many. I 
can't learn all your files, all your help pages, there is an endless sea 
of them. Doesn't work. I have to limit myself, and restrict myself, or I 
won't get anything done ever.

They say restricting is the beginning of manifestation and I think it is 
true.

I wrote the remainder first:


>> So please, some leniency with the "inadequacies" of other people 
>> because
>> they might be doing the right thing whereas you can't see that they do
>> because you do not have the information for it. Not all situations are
>> identical and everyone chooses the appropriate path for him or 
>> herself.
>> 
>> I hope that is enough now.
>> 
> 
> No need to advocate for yourself. I simply don't understand the 
> frustration,
> but hopefully you will forgive if I have insulted you in some way.
> I think your question has been answered and you can find your way. You 
> have
> received many ideas in how your problem may be solved easily.
> 
> Please also keep in mind this is a public list - a lot of people read 
> it and
> we write things that could benefit the rest as well.

Sometimes that results in insincerity because your answer is then more 
directed at the other people you don't want to do the same thing as this 
person is doing, than it is about helping this person help achieve his 
goal.

And if our answer is about educating everyone rather than a single 
person, by its very nature your education can only be about one way to 
do things. Then suddenly the topic becomes: what is this One and Only 
way to do something? And that precludes diversity, because the answer 
has to fit all, because since the Everything is your audience, you now 
have to write a single answer to everyone. No more specific answers to 
specific people, no, there is just one answer that has to apply to 
everyone.

And if this is the case here, then no small wonder that your answer does 
not apply to me (or to anyone) -- you're not even really talking to me, 
but to the people who are silently listening in the back.

In that case there can never really be an answer that really fits me 
because you were not even trying to achieve that.

And if I then object to the answer, because it does not fit me and what 
I am trying to do, that is only natural, and that the natural outcome of 
your actual intent: to provide a "one size fits all" answer to me.

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-22 18:40 +0100
  Re: chgrp with user Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2016-12-22 20:10 +0100
    Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-23 01:20 +0100
      Re: chgrp with user Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-12-23 14:10 +0100
        Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-27 12:30 +0100
  Re: chgrp with user deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-23 00:50 +0100
    Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-23 01:20 +0100
      Re: chgrp with user Nicolas George <george@nsup.org> - 2016-12-23 09:40 +0100
        Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-27 13:30 +0100
          Re: chgrp with user Gene Heskett <gheskett@shentel.net> - 2016-12-27 16:00 +0100
            Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-27 16:40 +0100
              Re: chgrp with user deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 21:10 +0100
                Re: chgrp with user Greg Wooledge <wooledg@eeg.ccf.org> - 2016-12-27 22:50 +0100
                Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-27 23:00 +0100
                Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-27 23:20 +0100
                Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-28 13:40 +0100
                Re: chgrp with user deloptes <deloptes@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 20:20 +0100
                Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-29 09:10 +0100
                Re: chgrp with user Xen <list@xenhideout.nl> - 2016-12-27 22:50 +0100
  Re: chgrp with user Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2016-12-23 15:20 +0100

csiph-web