On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 09:48:58AM +0200, Jesús M. Navarro wrote: > On Tuesday 19 October 2010 08:15:56 Josselin Mouette wrote: > [...] > > Le mardi 19 octobre 2010 à 02:12 +0200, Jesús M. Navarro a écrit : > > > What about the old-fashioned "wheel" group[1]? > > This would be an even worse disaster than “admin”, for similar reasons. > > Users of the “wheel” group were not supposed to get root privileges with > > their own password. > Ok. But since this group is conceptually the same than the "old" wheel group, > one "that provides additional special system privileges that empower a user > to execute restricted commands that ordinary user accounts cannot access", > why not make a bit of a joke of it? How about bigwheel (since that's where > wheel derives from)? It is *semantically* different. The worst possible way to implement this is by overtaking a pre-existing group that *we have defined* to have different semantics than what it's being proposed for. Defining a new group that may conflict with existing local groups on particular installed systems is not much better, but it's as good as we can get. > On the other hand, is it really necessary a new group? Can't adm or operator > be overloaded with this new functionality? (think Ockham's razor). No. Both of those groups also have other meanings. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slangasek@ubuntu.com vorlon@debian.org
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature