private group administration

[Les Mikesell]

Lutz Lange wrote:
> 
> i was thinking about user creation and group administration. Every user
> gets his own private group when he is created. And the motivation for
> that is to avoid users sharing files with all other users to per default
> right?

Not exactly.  Having your own private group assigned from the start 
makes it possible to use a default umask that gives group access to your 
files without actually giving anyone else access yet.  That means 
when/if you do want to let someone else have access, you don't have to 
go back and change the permissions on all your existing files and 
directories.


>   tux at somewhere ~> vi .bashrc
> 	umask 077

Don't forget to compliment the bits.  The default umask 002 gives group rwx.

> All right it might not be in my best interest to share something in my
> home dir, or if i do i have to be very careful about the permissions
> there...

No, the point of the private group is to permit access to everything 
that is yours.  If you don't want that, make a new group with the 
appropriate set of users added and use that group ownership instead of 
your own.

> But i still thinks a user should be in control of his private group.
> )
> 
> But he is not. This has to be set explicitly by the entity that creates
> the user. I wonder what the reasoning is/was behind that.
> 
> Why is a user not made administrator of his private group per default?

Think of common multiuser scenarios - like an office or school. 
Individuals are typically not in charge of their collaborative groups - 
that will be assigned by someone else.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com