Re: [RFC] User Accesable Filesystem Hierarchy Standard

On Sunday 28 March 2004 03:07 pm, you wrote:
> Users already can install software. Their are no
safeguards against this.
> They just need to set the prefix in their home
directory. If there is some
> safeguard I am forgetting about, please tell me.
>
The only systems where a vanilla user can install
software outside of his home directory, are ones which
have been specifically modified to do so.  There
absolutely ARE safeguards against it in standard
*nix.. namely an outright inability for any non-root
users to write to system directories.  To allow them
that sort of access is a serious breach of system
security.  It doesn't matter if this is a home desktop
or a server.  

> Someone already noted this, and the next revision of
the proposal will
> likely have almost everything moved into a dot
directory in each area. So,
> there would be ~/.system/bin, ~/.system/opt,
/home/shared/.system/bin, and
> so on.
Gary pointed out that the usage of ~/ in the
specification was a mistake, and assured me that
nothing would be stored in users' home directories.  I
still believe that any specification which calls for
sharing access to files under a user's home directory
is significantly flawed.  If you're going to create a
'shared' folder, create ONE folder under your
/home/shared where each user has his own writeable
directory in which users may place files they wish to
share.

I also fail to see the necessity of using dotted
directories for this.  If you have a 'userland root'
scenario which contains ONLY user installed programs,
and a 'shared area', I'm not sure I see the need for
any hidden directories.
>
> > point being, rather than creating 300 ~/.etc
> > directories (1 for each of 300 theoretical users),
> > let's create ONE /usr/root/etc that's rwx for all
300.
> >  In the end, you're asking for the traditional
> > problems of multiple users overwriting each
others'
> > changes.. but apparently this is more desirable
than
> > the current situation.
>
> This allows them to have a private area for things
that they want to keep
> private and a public area for things they wish to
keep public.

If you don't change the purpose of a user's home
directory, then anything IN that directory is private,
as is intended in *nix.

>
> The other reason for placing this into /home/shared/
is to extend the
> ability of users to share files locally on home
systems.
>

Placing the new 'root' in /home/shared is
theoretically fine, though I tend to disagree with
Gary as to whether this belongs here or elsewhere. 
But it seems like you're using /home/shared and ~/
stuff interchangeably.  The specification as Gary
described it to me last night is significantly
different than the one discussed in your RFC.

I can get behind a scenario where everything is
installed under this new 'root', and I'd be happy to
participate in discussions regarding the specifics of
making it work..  but I balk at supporting the current
documented specification making use of ~/ for a shared environment.