Tommy Reynolds wrote:
Uttered Douglas Furlong <douglas.furlong@xxxxxxxxxxx>, spake thus:
However I have read some suggest "."'s in the name may be a very bad thing.
my opinion: a "." in the username is no bad thing a "@" in the username, i do not need it
# useradd test@user # userdel test@user
One example was the chown command, on some systems you could have
a user named John, and Group name Smith, and another user John.Smith.
The chown form "name.group" is now deprecated.
The preferred form is now "name:group".
it was always "user:group" a few yeras agoo i have heard the first time about the possibility to use "user.group" instead "user:group"
$ man chown [...] SYNOPSIS chown [OPTION]... OWNER[:[GROUP]] FILE... chown [OPTION]... :GROUP FILE...
afaik under rhl <= 7.3 it was no problem to use dot_named_users:
?? is it in bugzilla ??
# cat /etc/redhat-release Red Hat Linux release 7.3 (Valhalla)
# useradd test.user
# passwd test.user Changing password for user test.user. New password: BAD PASSWORD: it's WAY too short Retype new password: passwd: all authentication tokens updated successfully.
# grep test.user /etc/passwd /etc/group /etc/passwd:test.user:x:506:507::/home/test.user:/bin/bash /etc/group:test.user:x:507:
# ll /home/ | grep test drwx------ 3 test.use test.use 4096 Mai 15 12:55 test.user
# mkdir te.us # ll | grep te.us drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Mai 15 13:05 te.us
# chown test.user:test.user te.us/ # ll | grep te.us drwxr-xr-x 2 test.use test.use 4096 Mai 15 13:05 te.us
# mail -sbla test.user blubber
