From owner-freebsd-hackers Sun Sep 14 22:11:19 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) id WAA29542 for hackers-outgoing; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:11:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: from echonyc.com (echonyc.com [198.67.15.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id WAA29532 for ; Sun, 14 Sep 1997 22:11:16 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (benedict@localhost) by echonyc.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with SMTP id BAA18968; Mon, 15 Sep 1997 01:11:06 -0400 (EDT) Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997 01:11:06 -0400 (EDT) From: Snob Art Genre To: Stephen McKay cc: freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Here's an interesting bug in our utmp handling. In-Reply-To: <199709150358.NAA04616@ogre.dtir.qld.gov.au> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Agree. Not only have I never used it, I've never even heard of anyone using it. Ok, come to think of it, I have used it, but only because I was amazed that I could. :-) On Mon, 15 Sep 1997, Stephen McKay wrote: > >Perhaps 0500 permissions are in order. > > If I recall correctly, that was the concensus of opinion last time I > heard this discussed... back in 1986, I believe. Is there any reason > why a non-root process should invoke login? I can't think of any. > > Stephen. > Ben "You have your mind on computers, it seems."