On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 07:07, you 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 is the 'traditional' -- System V -- way of doing things.
> This strikes me as being quite different to the every > username gets there own groupname setup of the previous RedHat boxs I've > setup. Deviants! > 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. No, but it increases the privacy of the users' files by default. > b) Is the 'Gentoo' way better imho, yes. However the downside is that the users have to understand how the unix permission system affects who can view, or even write to, their files. i.e. how to see and set the umask, how change their group, how to get the root user to change their primary default group. man vipw man vigr man umask man chgrp man chown man newgrp for pages and pages of explanations. The info pages are even more loquacious. > c) URL's that might explain the background of either option better. > d) Any Sys-Admins using one or the other with there benefits! I use Gentoo as well as you, & I am very happy with it, and am installing it into a multi-user situation. Use ACLs to improve the on the coarse granularity of the user / group / world offered by the unix permission system. Take care not to create a can of incomprehensible spaghetti though. -- Sincerely etc. Christopher Sawtell NB. This PC runs Linux. If you find a virus apparently from me, it has forged the e-mail headers on someone else's machine. Please do not notify me when this occurs. Thanks.
