| 1 |
On Monday 22 April 2002 15:00, Stephane Dudzinski wrote: |
| 2 |
> That's a very good idea but i would use a common user like games or |
| 3 |
> whatever instead of creating a new user for any game. |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
The group is games of course (to make it possible to only let user in that |
| 6 |
group play quake but for now I left read access to others as well). |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
I don't like the idea of some user named games tho. If Halflife has a remote |
| 9 |
hole I don't want the quake users to suffer. Thats like giving all daemons |
| 10 |
nobody.nogroup. Nobody wants that. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
We are speaking of game _servers_ here anyway. Ok you can actually play quake |
| 13 |
too (which I do myself :)) but at least Halflife is only the server part and |
| 14 |
I'm a supporter of every-deamon-get-his-own-account paradigma :) |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
If my ebuild ever get into portage this might be done differently but until |
| 17 |
then I like it that way :) |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Alex |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety |
| 23 |
deserve neither liberty nor safety." |
| 24 |
Benjamin Franklin |
Archives