* [9fans] adm vs bootes
@ 2003-11-25 13:23 Tiit Lankots
2003-11-25 13:36 ` David Presotto
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: Tiit Lankots @ 2003-11-25 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
Is it a bad idea to make adm the auth server owner?
Tiit
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] adm vs bootes
2003-11-25 13:23 [9fans] adm vs bootes Tiit Lankots
@ 2003-11-25 13:36 ` David Presotto
2003-11-27 16:34 ` jmk
0 siblings, 1 reply; 3+ messages in thread
From: David Presotto @ 2003-11-25 13:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 285 bytes --]
On ken's old file server and kfs, the user "adm" was quite
special. One couldn't authenticate to the file server as
"adm" for example. In that case, I think it would be a
bad idea.
On fossil, I don't think that there's anything special about
"adm". Jmk or rsc may correct me.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2073 bytes --]
From: "Tiit Lankots" <t.lankots@aprote.ee>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: [9fans] adm vs bootes
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:23:55 +0200
Message-ID: <81132473206F3A46A72BD6116E1A06AE479CB3@black.aprote.com>
Is it a bad idea to make adm the auth server owner?
Tiit
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] adm vs bootes
2003-11-25 13:36 ` David Presotto
@ 2003-11-27 16:34 ` jmk
0 siblings, 0 replies; 3+ messages in thread
From: jmk @ 2003-11-27 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 9fans
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 237 bytes --]
adm is not really special in fossil, it's the owner of various
files created internally (e.g. snapshots). however, best not to use
it for general things, it may become more special over time as
we fix problems, add fetures, bugs, etc.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 4411 bytes --]
[-- Attachment #2.1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 285 bytes --]
On ken's old file server and kfs, the user "adm" was quite
special. One couldn't authenticate to the file server as
"adm" for example. In that case, I think it would be a
bad idea.
On fossil, I don't think that there's anything special about
"adm". Jmk or rsc may correct me.
[-- Attachment #2.1.2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2073 bytes --]
From: "Tiit Lankots" <t.lankots@aprote.ee>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: [9fans] adm vs bootes
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:23:55 +0200
Message-ID: <81132473206F3A46A72BD6116E1A06AE479CB3@black.aprote.com>
Is it a bad idea to make adm the auth server owner?
Tiit
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 3+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2003-11-27 16:34 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-11-25 13:23 [9fans] adm vs bootes Tiit Lankots
2003-11-25 13:36 ` David Presotto
2003-11-27 16:34 ` jmk
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).