[PATCH] bug 79685

[David Johnson]

On Tuesday 25 January 2005 07:09 am, Heiko Hund wrote:
> On Thursday 20 January 2005 01:46, Michael Nottebrock wrote:
> > Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > To protect the user from his own umask?
> >
> > Users like me don't need to be protected from their umasks,
> > thankyouverymuch.
>
> I also think that this is the wrong way to protect users from world
> readable files. The concerned user should know about the umask
> anyway. However it cost me half a day of work once to figure out that
> the way kmail stores attachments and not the attachment itself was
> causing an error [don't ask! =)].

There are two main ways to approach the user. The first is to protect 
the user from himself. The second is to assume the user knows what he 
is doing. The latter is the Unix way. KDE is a desktop for Unix and 
Unix-like systems. Protecting the user from his own umask goes against 
the grain of everything that is Unix.

Don't misunderstand me, this is not about newbies versus experts. It's 
about ignoring the explicit directions given to the system by the user. 
A umask is always explicitly set, either by the user, an administrator, 
or by some systems integrator choosing a default value. If the umask is 
set inappropriately "out of the box" on some systems, then blame the 
"box". 

-- 
David Johnson
___________________
http://www.usermode.org