> not exactly. The idea is to have all personal accounts in their own
> separate groups. This leads to everyone needing a uniq group. and from
> there it was decided that group names follow user names (though it could have
> been something else such as "user: greg, group: group-greg"), or well, you
> get the idea. The point is that it is not the case that uid/gid must match.
> Nor is it the case that they "must be called the same name". No where in any
> file/utility/program/deamon/etc. is this a requirement.
Um.. isn't that what I said the first time?
> you can still have. it is up to the system administrator when they create the
> accounts, as to whether they put people in the same group, or uniq groups.
I mean like.. back in the day. Most people (of today) have never heard of
the wheel group.
> at work, we have a development group, and everyone is assigned that group
> (as opposed to their own personal group). This is _not_ a problem.
I have no use for the UPG scheme.. maybe I should work on reformatting
things a lil. I wish that things were more like the BSD days. Linux is
becoming a little too diverse... err.. the distros more like.
_______________________________________________
Redhat-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
