On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 19:48:37 +0100 (CET), Chris Huebsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > "Supergroups," as I always learned from Day 1 of AFS, are pts negative > > IDs that are created by an admin so that it and it's subgroups can be > > manipulated by more than one person. > > Can you show me a group with an positive ID? I bet you can't. Groups are negative. Users are positive. NOW who's pedantic? :) > > Call me pedantic, but I'd like to see we don't use the same term for > > two different things. > > Perhaps you should use the term "self-owned group", as the AFS > Administrator Guide does: > > http://www.openafs.org/pages/doc/AdminGuide/auagd019.htm#HDRWQ547 > Sherman, set the WABAC machine. I wonder if I have my original AFS 3 "from before Transarc' documentation in my office somewhere. :-) Ok, seriously: The problem with "self-owned group" is that it's clunky about actual ownership. The idea of [whatever]groups is multiple owners. "multiple selfs" is just silly. So what then, "multi-owned group"? Is that better? And as for Derrick's "I've never heard of that," That only goes further to prove he never listens to me.... _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-info mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info