On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 11:06, Craig White wrote: > > > You just have to decide whether you want to continue with the Linux standard where every user is a > > > member of his own group. As the number of users grows, that becomes a PITA. > > > > I've struggled with this issue, researching the rationale behind it, but > > I'm not any wiser. > > > > Would anyone care to comment on the "every user has a group" issue? > ---- > I can't speak to Linux standard - I only am familiar with the Red Hat > packaging, which would by default... > > useradd craig > > add both a user and a group named craig > > the man page for useradd on a Red Hat system has this caveat..." The > version provided with Red Hat Linux will create a group for each user > added to the system by default." Yes, I think this is redhat-specific. The reasoning is that the home directories can be made group rw and a default umask of 0002 used without initially introducing any new permission problems since no one else but the user is in the group. This simplifies the changes needed when you do want group access since the permissions are already there and the groups are unique. All you have to do is add the other user(s) to your group. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com
