On Tue, 09.10.12 21:26, Matthew Miller (mattdm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 09, 2012 at 05:19:59PM -0700, J. Randall Owens wrote:
> > Just on the naming, I'd rather steer clear of the actual concept, let me
> > get this straight: You want a group called "adm", presumably short for
> > "administrator", the point of which is that it can view system things,
> > but not actually *administer* them? Why on Earth call it "adm"?
>
> The group is already there, so it's not a big stretch, but I agree the
> naming is confusing when used in this way. ("wheel" isn't exactly
> straightforward either, but at least it's Traditional.)
As I already mentioned: "adm" has been around for along time, and has
been used in this context in Debian since about forever. We just adopted
the same logic in systemd that already made sense on Debian for a long
time.
In systemd we try to unify Linux a bit, part of that is to take
influences and be inspired by the various distros around. In this case
the Debian way made most sense to us, so we made it the default in
systemd, too.
Lennart
--
Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc.
--
devel mailing list
devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
