Hello Martin,
Am 2006-01-30 17:05:10, schrieb martin f krafft:
> Note he didn't ask how to configure it, but why it is as it is.
OK.
> I answered this question in my book (see my signature):
:-)
I am reading allready... And its great!
> For new user accounts, \programme{adduser} creates a
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 04:43:29PM +0100, Michelle Konzack wrote:
> Please look into the configuration of 2adduser" in
>
> /etc/adduser.conf
>
> and RTFM: man 5 adduser.conf
>
> There is all configurable.
>
> Greetings
> Michelle Konzack
> Systemadministrator
>
also sprach Michelle Konzack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.01.26.1643 +0100]:
> Please look into the configuration of 2adduser" in
>
> /etc/adduser.conf
>
> and RTFM: man 5 adduser.conf
Note he didn't ask how to configure it, but why it is as it is.
I answered this question in
Please look into the configuration of 2adduser" in
/etc/adduser.conf
and RTFM: man 5 adduser.conf
There is all configurable.
Greetings
Michelle Konzack
Systemadministrator
Tamay Dogan Network
Debian GNU/Linux Consultant
Am 2006-01-22 19:40:00, schrieb Da
On Sun, Jan 22, 2006 at 07:52:19PM -0600, Reid Priedhorsky wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:00:21 +0100, Glenn Meehan wrote:
> >
> > Sounds like you have been using another flavour of unix. SCO has a
> > similar group structure to the one you describe. In linux the default is
> > to create a group f
Glenn Meehan writes:
> It seems to me that a users group would be a more logical way to go. But
> I'm sure that "the powers that be" have a good reason for configuring it
> this way.
One group per user is the Debian default because that provides the most
privacy.
> I suppose that the only reason
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 02:00:21 +0100, Glenn Meehan wrote:
>
> Sounds like you have been using another flavour of unix. SCO has a
> similar group structure to the one you describe. In linux the default is
> to create a group for each user name that is created. I don't know why
> it does this. It seems
Sounds like you have been using another flavour of unix. SCO has a
similar group structure to the one you describe. In linux the default is
to create a group for each user name that is created. I don't know why
it does this. It seems to me that a users group would be a more logical
way to go. But I
Which group should 'own' the files in my home directory?
I just noticed that most sub-directories and files in my home folder are owned
by
dan:dan.
dan is the user account i use on my pc, it is the only account i log in
under other than root (this is a home pc, i'm the only one that uses
it).
9 matches
Mail list logo