Re: "user/group _pflogd:_pflogd" what's with the _ ?

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_at_elvandar.org
Reporter DSINet                |remko_at_dsinet.org
Projectleader Mostly-Harmless  |remko_at_mostly-harmless.nl