non-superuser chown(2)s considered harmful

[Kristoffer Eriksson]

In article <1990Dec11.102433.10999 at kithrup.COM> sef at kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>In article <1990Dec09.043647.25826 at iecc.cambridge.ma.us> johnl at iecc.cambridge.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes:
>>charge responsibility for each directory (with the default being that a
>
>Sounds good.  I'll just put everything in /tmp.

How would that be a problem? /tmp is usually being wiped clean now and then,
so you can't store anything there which you want to keep.

I have almost the same reply to the argument that if chown is free, you
could make others own your files and escape quotas: if you let someone
else own your file, you run the risk of that other person doing some
not so nice things to your data (in fact, you deserve to loose it), so
you can't use that method for any serious business.

-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske at pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!sunic.sunet.se!kullmar!pkmab!ske