On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 16:03, Ryurick M. Hristev wrote: > On Thu, 14 Mar 2002, Kerry Baker wrote: > > > With Red Hat linux (and derivatives) useradd automatically creates a > > group of the same name as the user. > > I really don't know why they did this, maybe is slightly more > "secure" for very small "shops" and for users who don't know what > user/group access rights are for ? >
Solves the problem you've got. > Anyway in an enterprise environment is generally preposterous to create > one group for each user. Yep. Agree with you there. Its only managable in small environments. > > > Its easy to permit access to a single user using chgrp and chmod if you > > are the file owner. > > I don't think I understand what you mean here. > E.g. You want user Bob to have read access to your file. There also exists a group Bob that only Bob is a member of (default behaviour on Red Hat remember). Stick the file in a directory accessible to Bob. chgrp bob file chmod 640 file > > If you don't use Red Hat then perhaps you can convince your sysadmin to > > create a group for each user manually. At least then you don't have to > > continually bug him/her. (Of course a BOFH would balk at this > > delegation of power :) > > I hope I'm not a BOFH :-) and I would certanly balk at this one. Come on, there's a bit of BOFH in all of us ;) Kerry.
