On Fri, Aug 21, 1998 at 11:39:40PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > Hi, > >>"Stephen" == Stephen J Carpenter <email@example.com> writes: > > Stephen> And I have not run Xadmin either (tho personally I don't see > Stephen> the problem with it modifing the files...it is an admin tool > Stephen> afterall...noone complains about vi being able to edit the > Stephen> files...but I didn't get into that argument when I saw it... > Stephen> not interesed in it now :) ) > > Noone complains about vi beinag able to edit files because vi > does not care if you last editied the file using Emacs, XEmacs, or > perl -i; or cat|grep , or awk, sed etc. If vi objected to other > editing methods, we would object to vi as well. > > If Xadmin does not require you to use xadmin exclusively, that > is, if I can intersperse Xadmin, vi, Emacs, perl -i; well, then, I > love Xadmin. > > Does it? The fact is I have no answer for you...I have never used it. And is a very good question :) I do agree tho. While I think Xadmin should be looked upon as an editor and be able to edit the files... It SHOULD not reuire that it be the ONLY way. If it does then that should definitly be a bug against Xadmin :) Thats the main reason I left RedHat for debian originally, I love their graphical tools but...I like to ALSO be able to do it from the command line. It is a persons write to choose to be lazy or not and no administration program should take that away :) in any case...this shadow permissions thing isn't Xadmin's fault... cuz I have it on BOTH my system at home and at work...but... is -rw-r----- 1 root shadow 950 Aug 12 21:47 shadow wrong? (thast what the original post said if I remember) I don't see why...afterall whats the point of group shadow if that group can't at least read /etc/shadow? -Steve -- /* -- Stephen Carpenter <firstname.lastname@example.org> --- <email@example.com>------------ */ E-mail "Bumper Stickers": "A FREE America or a Drug-Free America: You can't have both!" "honk if you Love Linux"
Description: PGP signature