On Jul 17 14:05, Christopher Faylor wrote: > On Mon, Jul 17, 2006 at 11:43:17AM -0400, Igor Peshansky wrote: > >On Mon, 17 Jul 2006, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > > >> On Jul 17 16:49, Corinna Vinschen wrote: > >> > On Jul 17 10:40, Christopher Faylor wrote: > >> > > Are there bad reasons for not just calling this account "root"? > >> > > >> > A while back I thought this is a good idea, but not anymore. > >> > > >> > The account is a service-starter account only. Nothing else should be > >> > done with this account and the installation script actually forbids > >> > this account to be used for logon. I don't want people to get the wrong > >> > idea what this account is for. I know from earlier discussions that > >> > some people are already using the root account name as a substitute > >> > for some Admin account, or that some people are already created a root > >> > account on their machines. I can easily imagine what happens next after > >> > we occupied the root account name for the service-starter account. > >> > >> Having said that, the account name is still open for discussion of > >> course. If everybody except me thinks "root" is a good idea, so be it. > > > >FWIW, I'd go with "daemon" (or, as a second choice, "server"). I agree > >with your reasoning about "root", and, IMO, "cygwin_server" is too long. > > I think I'd prefer "daemon" since it has linux/unix precedent.
Sounds good to me, too. Hopefully we won't have too many collisions with already exising installations (that would be the definitive advantage of a "cygwin_something" account). Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Red Hat
