On 3/28/06, "आशीष शुक्ला \"Wah Java !!\"" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And BTW, what are conventions for, if they're not fit in every situations,
> that's why standards are there.
>
There are many, many things it's worth fighting for standardisation
on. The username 'root' is such an ingrained Unix
Hi Sandip G,
Sandip Bhattacharya wrote:
>
> 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
> 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
Cian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> On 3/26/06, "आशीष शुक्ला \"Wah Java !!\"" gmail.com> wrote:
> > Since it is not precisely defined (if defined somewhere, I don't know) that
> > super user has to be defined as "root" in all UNIX systems, then why assume
> > presence of "root".
> >
> You are t
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
" ?? \"Wah Java !!\"" on Sunday 26 Mar 2006 09:40 wrote:
> As its doc says, "If no USER is given, the default is 'root', the
> super-user.", it seems that author's aim of su program when no USER is
> provided is to become super-user, but he ha
