Matt Zimmerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Dec 16, 2002 at 05:08:54PM +0100, Susanne Oberhauser wrote: > > > Sergey Korzhevsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > Could you explain me, please, what is the reason to remove 'root' > > > name from a system? > > > > there is none --- to the contrary doing so is Evil (tm) for LSB > > compliant distributions. > > However, to rely on LSB compliance in portable programs is just as > Evil. > > 10 Thou shalt foreswear, renounce, and abjure the vile heresy which > claimeth that ``All the world's [an LSB-compliant Linux system]'', > and have no commerce with the benighted heathens who cling to this > barbarous belief, that the days of thy program may be long even > though the days of thy current machine be short.
:))) ok, ok, I do --- being no native speaker, I can't abjure that poetically, but yes, of course there are other operating systems out there ;), I've even heard of some with very strange names for root, Stratminidator or the like... Nevertheless would you agree with me that for systmes claiming to run on *Linux*, relying on the existence of a user 'root' should be ok? This would allow portable software to have just *one* platform specific backend for *all* flavors of Linux, and would ease porting of such software to Linux. Susanne
