[As has already been pointed out, I confused RedHat's "every user gets their own group with what we have additionally implemented, "every group gets its own user".]
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Dub Dublin wrote: > There are a lot of reasons this is good, but one basic one is that you > often want things to *not* be owned by any group member, but be > accessible to the group. > > Another factor is that this allows easier assignment of group and user > IDs, since you just set the two to be the same for each user, and then > assign membership through /etc/groups. That's why we do it, but the first reason sounds like it could be useful as well. > You can either set the group user ID to be no login (shell=/bin/false), > or allow logins in case you want to allow a true group administrator > account. It's a good thing. That's also why we do it :-) > I wish Red Hat (and/or E-smith) would pay more attention to the right > way to do things. We do try to do things "the right way" wherever possible. If you have any specific suggestions for what we could do better, please send them to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Charlie Brady [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lead Product Developer Network Server Solutions Group http://www.e-smith.com/ Mitel Networks Corporation http://www.mitel.com/ Phone: +1 (613) 592 5660 or 592 2122 Fax: +1 (613) 592 1175 -- Please report bugs to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Please mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] (only) to discuss security issues Support for registered customers and partners to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Archives by mail and http://www.mail-archive.com/devinfo%40lists.e-smith.org
