On 10/06/2015 12:50 PM, cagsm wrote:
Seriously. Please explain. I would like to understand the minds and the workings of unix and linux.
It seems perfectly reasonable to me, but it doesn't to you because you've looked at this in isolation. Here is one hypothesis. It is a hypothesis because it is reasonable but it is only a hypothesis because you have not supplied enough contextual information about what you did to being this about or how your system is configured. Linux has a number of security levels and configurations. You can personalise these in detail of you want, but they are there are there as part of the package. You can see, for example /etc/polkit-default-privs.local /etc/polkit-default-privs.restrictive /etc/polkit-default-privs.standard and more under /etc/security/ In particular, there are a set of files which determine the permission settings for a whole bunch of files. /etc/permissions /etc/permissions.easy /etc/permissions.secure /etc/permissions.paranoid /etc/permissions.local In addition there should be a directory /etc/permissions.d with permissions settings for each of a number of specific applications. These files determine the settings according to the level of 'paranoia' or lack of it you decide to have for YOUR system. This will *always* override the settings of any package that is installed. All this is well documented. Please RTFM: "settings" in section 5 of the manual. How would you find this? The 'apropos' command is very, very good at giving pointers on just about all mattes. You may need a few attempts with different keywords but this one should be easy. Here, the page says <quote> The chkstat program sets permissions and ownerships according to the permission files. </quote> So next up look at the man page for "chkstat" The key here is <quote> In system mode /etc/permissions/security determines which level to use and whether to actually apply permission changes. </quote> Actually this is now /etc/sysconfig/security. Under current Linux check sysconfig first :-0 So its possible that the installation triggered a check of *your specific* configuration and adjusted the permissions accordingly. The packager does not know how any particular user is going to configure his or her system. It is also possible that cron or similar runs "chkstat --system" regularly. That's another hypothesis, but since this seems to have occurred when you installed the package, I'd go for the first hypothesis. Linux is nowhere near as draconian as Windows. Linux assumes its users are smart and are going to invest some time making Linux do what they want, and by that I don't mean the kind of "eye candy" that a GUI permits. The issue with those levels of configuration and policy is "how paranoid do you want to be?" Linux is not in its infancy, it is quite mature and very sophisticated. I realise that this sophistication may often bee baffling and confusing to someone from Windowsland or even OSX-land where the attitudes are much more paternalistic. Under the hood, Linux is not really a desktop system :-/ The X display server can run anywhere, it doesn't need the OS; this is quite the opposite to the way of Windows where the display is a key part of the OS. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org