umask per directory?

[Moderator, John Quarterman]

Date: Fri, 31 Jan 86 13:19:46 cst
>From: ihnp4!utzoo!lsuc!msb (Mark Brader)
Organization: Law Society of Upper Canada, Toronto

> From: mcnc!duke!rrt at seismo.UUCP (Russ Tuck)
> Subject: Re: TZ and TERM per process
(May I remind the moderator to watch out for inappropriate Subjects?)
[ You're right:  I missed that one.  -mod ]

> I heartily agree that umask should be per-directory rather than per-process.
> This is more natural and useful, allowing related files to be given the same
> protection automatically as they are created in a directory.  

And I heartily DISAGREE.  My umask is 022, and when I create a file
whose mode is not 644 or 755, it is a rare and earthshaking event.
Seems to me that if I was a secretive umask 077 type, or a permissive
umask 0 type, I'd feel exactly the same way.  Directories with booby
traps are the mark of VMS, not UNIX.

[ The moderator reminds the posters that attacks on ideas as being
appropriate to a given operating system don't add much to the discussion.
Furthermore, if you set the umask on your home directory to 022,
and that were inherited through your directory subtree, you would
get the same effect for your files as with a per-process umask.

I'd be really interested in any comments from John Mashey as
to what arguments arose concerning this idea when the per-process
umask was decided upon.  -mod ]

		 { decvax | ihnp4 | watmath | ... } !utzoo!lsuc!msb
		    also via { hplabs | amd | ... } !pesnta!lsuc!msb
Mark Brader		and		   uw-beaver!utcsri!lsuc!msb

Volume-Number: Volume 5, Number 25