Re: [RFC] User Accesable Filesystem Hierarchy Standard

Let me back up a step and say that I still agree with you in principle 
on the /home/shared concept and its advantages.  My first point in my 
last email was simply that your statement that there are no current 
safeguards against vanilla users installing software, was mistaken.  
That's getting off topic to some degree though, so I digress.

Apparently Gary and I were still on different pages when I talked to 
him, as I still didn't quite understand from that discussion what you 
were trying to do with the stuff in users' home directories..
thus what we discussed and what you're describing are not totally 
different, but we didn't discuss 'private installs'.

Speaking of which.. what exactly is your target audience?  I don't see 
that allowing 'private' installs gains you much, and adds an unnecessary 
layer of complication to the install/build process.  I think it might be 
completely necessary for a very small minority of users, but would be a 
pretty big waste of time for most home desktop users.. and would make 
administration of the machines a nightmare.  The main audience I can 
imagine getting much out of that would be kids who want to hide their 
'special' programs from their parents.. which isn't much of an audience 
for a cross-distribution specification.  Maybe I'm wrong, but the home 
desktop environments I'm familiar with typically have one to two 
computers which may or may not be networked, and have MAYBE four users 
total. The people who have replied to the RFC to date are not what I 
would call 'typical' desktop users.. they're people who use their linux 
server as a desktop.. which is not the same.

 > The purpose is that nobody really wants to see the actual program 
files very often. On every Linux
 > system that I know of, all installed programs are meant to be managed 
through a package
 > manager. This method prevents inexperienced users from accidentally 
messing something up, but
 > does nothing to prevent serious users from doing what they want to.

I totally agree.  Using a new 'user' root actually WOULD create a new 
layer of overall system security, as long as somebody makes sure that no 
program is installed SUID root.

 > Not everything should be installed to that new section. The purpose 
is partly that newly installed
 > programs won't need to be installed into the main system. This 
should, to some extent, prevent
 > malware and trojans from messing with system files because they can 
be installed without ever
 > gaining access to system files. Also, it means people really don't 
need to mess with the root
 > system as often. However, many things still should be made root 
installs.

Hmm.. I tend to disagree.  I think that your specification with regards 
to vanilla user software installs is perfect right up to the point where 
you talk about private installs and special situations.  From an 
administrative standpoint, I think you alleviate part of your problem by 
doing every install in such a way that only the user who installs each 
program (or root) can uninstall or reconfigure it. 

I think the goal should be limited: to making life easier for vanilla 
users by allowing program install to a non-system root directory 
structure; and allowing users to share files by creating a shared file 
directory someplace under the non-system root (/home/shared, or whatever).

Limiting it that way leaves the goal clear, uncomplicates the changes 
which will be necessary to implement this new specification, keeps 
administration somewhat simple, does not impact systems which may be 
importing this home directory (via nfs or some other networked method), 
and allows the whole thing to be easily uninstallable.  I think this 
specification should be implemented as a package which can be installed 
and removed, meaning that removal of the package and all previously 
user-installed packages, must be simple and straightforward.

Heh.. I know I've had a negative position on this topic.. understanding 
is helping me to look at this objectively as opposed to religiously from 
a sysadmin point of view.