On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > On Jul 17 16:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > On Jul 17 10:40, Christopher Faylor wrote: > > > Are there bad reasons for not just calling this account "root"? > > > > A while back I thought this is a good idea, but not anymore. > > > > The account is a service-starter account only. Nothing else should be > > done with this account and the installation script actually forbids > > this account to be used for logon. I don't want people to get the wrong > > idea what this account is for. I know from earlier discussions that > > some people are already using the root account name as a substitute > > for some Admin account, or that some people are already created a root > > account on their machines. I can easily imagine what happens next after > > we occupied the root account name for the service-starter account. > > Having said that, the account name is still open for discussion of > course. If everybody except me thinks "root" is a good idea, so be it.
FWIW, I'd go with "daemon" (or, as a second choice, "server"). I agree with your reasoning about "root", and, IMO, "cygwin_server" is too long. Igor -- http://cs.nyu.edu/~pechtcha/ |\ _,,,---,,_ [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [EMAIL PROTECTED] ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ Igor Peshansky, Ph.D. (name changed!) |,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-' old name: Igor Pechtchanski '---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL a.k.a JaguaR-R-R-r-r-r-.-.-. Meow! "Las! je suis sot... -Mais non, tu ne l'es pas, puisque tu t'en rends compte." "But no -- you are no fool; you call yourself a fool, there's proof enough in that!" -- Rostand, "Cyrano de Bergerac"