<posted & mailed> > Well if it is really a standard, then it has to be enforced. BTW, what do > u mean by standard convention, just a preferred among some sysadmins, or > written in some UNIX standards. I've tried finding POSIX specifications on > IEEE, but they're paid. :-( . So, I tried unix.org and from there I found > SUSV (IEEE Std. 1003.1, is it POSIX standard, hmmm.. ?). So there they too > don't mention "root" name for the superuser. It is just referred to as > superuser.
A lot of how stuff works, on not only Unix but all computer systems, are merely conventions and not standards written in stone. Conventions work, as long as sufficient part of the population follows it. This works not only in computers but also in real life. Following the convention normally assures that you would find the widest amount of acceptability, and will be able to "fit" into the rest of the society. Just an example, in the lighter (not disparaging) sense , nobody has written a rule that you will have to walk on legs. You might want to just go ahead and walk on your hands - upside down. Just that a lot of stuff becomes difficult to do in everyday life that way. :) Similarly, using the root user consistently as the superuser on Unix systems, will make it easy for the computer to play with many software which assumes that the root "has the power". - Sandip _______________________________________________ ilugd mailinglist -- ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org http://frodo.hserus.net/mailman/listinfo/ilugd Archives at: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.user-groups.linux.delhi http://www.mail-archive.com/ilugd@lists.linux-delhi.org/
