[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: "userdel" program



On Thu, 17 Jul 1997, Miguel A.L. Paraz wrote:
[...]
>What I meant was automatically syncing the group and the user, but yes,
>we can generate that using a script: add the group first, then,
>add the user belonging to that group.

If you're concerned about syncing GIDs with UIDs, I wouldn't bother.
Over time, it'll be too much of a headache.

>> >Would using useradd and keeping all users in the 'users' group be
>> >a major drawback?
>> 
>> Nope.
>
>OK.. just thought I would be breaking "the spirit of Red Hat" or something
>like that :)

No.  In fact, Red Hat's scheme is quite different than just about every
other UNIX in existance, and does not work well in traditional UNIX
environments.  It's good if you have a lot of users sharing a lot of
stuff, but otherwise, I find it's just more of a headache than its worth.

>Now I wonder why Red Hat did *not* make use the full shadow-utils.
>Any conflicts?

The only specific reason I've ever seen is that the standard shadow-utils
don't handle large group membership lists well (which is true).
But that explaination was presented as one of several reasons why the
entire shadow-utils suite isn't included.  Early-on, around RHL 2.0,
I believe the reason shadow passwords weren't included was because of
copyright or licensing concerns.  That's been resolved, now, though.

Here at PatriotNet, we use a home-spun user management suite (which
we'll be releasing as free software soon) that doesn't rely on the shadow
suite and that doesn't use Red Hat's user-group scheme.

-- 
    Steve Coile           P a t r i o t  N e t      Systems Engineering
 scoile@patriot.net      Patriot Computer Group        (703) 277-7737



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index] []