Messages in this thread | ![/](/images/icornerl.gif) | | From | danielt@digi ... | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 1999 21:45:22 -0500 (CDT) | Subject | RE: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) |
| |
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Shawn Leas wrote:
> From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfrost@mail.snowman.net] > Subject: RE: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device > a lloc ation) ) > > >> So why not simply let the driver decide upon it's nodes' permissions? > > Because I want user joe to own /dev/fd0? > > So chown it!!!!! Devfsd gives you persistance. Don't > give me that "till I reboot" bullshit. > And if it is that important to you, do not trust devfsd, put the chown in rc.local!
> >> This is a straw man argument. You take an easy target, knock it down, > >> and it really doesn't mean anything, but you claim victory. Shame. > > > Having to have a configuration file for permissions is not a good > >thing. Permissions go with files, they don't go in a config file > somewhere. > > Configurable with defaults, and your changes are persistant. > You absolutely have not read the FAQ, or you are lieing > intentionally. > I still think persistence of permissions is a big mistake. If you do something stupid like chowning files in /dev instead of adding the users you want to access them to the groups that can, you deserve all of the pain and suffering that goes along with that choice. Regardless of devfs.
-- Daniel Taylor Senior Test Engineer Digi International danielt@digi.com Open systems win.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| ![\](/images/icornerr.gif) |