On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 07:07, Andrew Sands wrote: > List dwellers, > > Whilst in the process of setting up another server 'gentoo based', I've > noticed that the adduser command creates the new username and puts it into > the 'users' group. This strikes me as being quite different to the every > username gets there own groupname setup of the previous RedHat boxs I've > setup. > > My Google searches to this points have been rather fruitless, BUT that could > just be my choice of catalyst words. > > What I'd appreciate knowing; > a) Is there any need to do the 'RedHat' style username = groupname. > b) Is the 'Gentoo' way better > c) URL's that might explain the background of either option better. > d) Any Sys-Admins using one or the other with there benefits!
>From my point of view, neither is fantastic. Redhat/debian/probably other distros too do the "each user has their own group as well" to provide more configurable file access. They also have a users group btw. Imagine a system with A, B and C as users. If they all belong to a group witht the same name as their username, then A could do this... edit secret.txt chmod 770 secret.txt chown A:B secret.txt Thus allowing B to read the file, but excluding C. The Gentoo way is simpler... users are one group and treated the same. Now if only there was a simple way to talk to an active directory server.... -- C. Falconer
