From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Jun 30 17:51:00 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 71BF516A4CE; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:51:00 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.elvandar.org (cust.94.120.adsl.cistron.nl [195.64.94.120]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CF8A143D39; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:50:57 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from remko@elvandar.org) Received: from [10.0.3.124] (aragorn.lan.elvandar.intranet [10.0.3.124]) by mail.elvandar.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39C8F10687D; Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:50:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <40E2FD7A.9050608@elvandar.org> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 19:50:50 +0200 From: Remko Lodder X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Jorge Mario G." References: <20040630174322.87487.qmail@web50310.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <20040630174322.87487.qmail@web50310.mail.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at elvandar.org cc: mlaier@FreeBSD.org cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "user/group _pflogd:_pflogd" what's with the _ ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2004 17:51:00 -0000 Hey Jorge, Jorge Mario G. wrote: > Hi there > well > I dont know if pflogd requires the user/groupe to be > _pflogd. But if not why the _ ??? > from "our" point of view is ugly and "adds" > complication. aslo the standard of freebsd is normal > understandable usernames. pflogd from OpenBSD is built to use _pflogd as user (and group i thought). Can you tell us what you mean with "our" point of view, are we talking about a huge group? or your individual opinion (that's usefull for seeing if many people complain or only a few). I personally think that's nicer to have _daemonuser so that all daemon users are directly visible from output's. It's also a safety measure, one can have _pflogd as the pflogd user, and pflogd as a reporting user that does cronjobs or something. That way the access they both have is restricted. Which cannot be done if you have users named the same (pflogd both). Another thing that i personally think is that these are also understandable _daemon => hey a daemon process that perhaps needs to be kicked since it's suckedup all CPU (memory leak's, something else?) daemon => hey a bogus username that sucks up 99% of the CPU running eh dnetc (for example) But then again, it remains my personall opinion, again, i am PRO _daemon names Cheers > > > > Jorge > > ===== -- Kind regards, Remko Lodder |remko@elvandar.org Reporter DSINet |remko@dsinet.org Projectleader Mostly-Harmless |remko@mostly-harmless.nl