On Sunday 27 June 2004 10:53, Alexandr Malusek wrote:

Michael Satterwhite writes:

...

Does anyone know a way to (a) change the UID of my existing user

Change the UID in /etc/passwd.

...

and (b) globally change the UID of the files created by my user under 9.1.

# find / -uid 1000 -print0 | xargs -0 chown 500

I used find with an exec command to fix it. I like your solution, too; I'm going to play with it a bit. Thanks for the help.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 27 June 2004 17:37, doc wrote:

Michael Satterwhite wrote:

...

Does anyone know a way to (a) change the UID of my existing user and (b) globally change the UID of the files created by my user under 9.1. This needs to be done selectively ... if the file is owned by UID 1000, then it needs to be changed to UID 500.

Anyone know how to do this?

Just went through this.

You need to make use of the chown command. I believe the following is a fair summary of how the command is properly formatted:

chown -R username:groupname /home/username/filename or * for all

Sounds like this might be the reason God created the find command. <g> Whoever in SuSE / Novell that had the bright idea of making this change without warning us at the beginning of the installation process should be nailed to a wall with a hawthorn stake through his heart. Or at least made to work in Windows for the next 12 months as penance. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA3ga8jeziQOokQnARAk95AKCvr0l+8qWXabrBx934voJ38I9jIQCfVYhJ gk3rRT6SenjNpbA3eAxP2qc= =4lU3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Per Jessen wrote:

Michael Satterwhite wrote:

...

Whoever in SuSE / Novell that had the bright idea of making this change without warning us at the beginning of the installation process should be nailed to a wall with a hawthorn stake through his heart. Or at least made to work in Windows for the next 12 months as penance.

This is exactly the kind of lack of quality I was worried about when I asked for a show of hands regarding 9.1 a while back. Sure it can be fixed, even with minimal effort. But what it means is - SuSE never tested this. And that is worrying, 'coz which other bits weren't tested?

Would that be a "lack of quality" or just a design change they didn't mention? The new kernel supports 4 billion users, instead of the 64 thousand, as in the earlier kernels. Maybe they just decided to move the users up a bit, to make room for more system users.

Had a look at the unix boxes I help support, I note they all start at 1001, maybe SuSe's just setting up to the Unix standard in preparation for a takeover. scsijon At 07:53 AM 27/06/2004, James Knott wrote:

Per Jessen wrote:

...

Michael Satterwhite wrote:

...

Whoever in SuSE / Novell that had the bright idea of making this change without warning us at the beginning of the installation process should be nailed to a wall with a hawthorn stake through his heart. Or at least made to work in Windows for the next 12 months as penance.

This is exactly the kind of lack of quality I was worried about when I asked for a show of hands regarding 9.1 a while back. Sure it can be fixed, even with minimal effort. But what it means is - SuSE never tested this. And that is worrying, 'coz which other bits weren't tested?

Would that be a "lack of quality" or just a design change they didn't mention? The new kernel supports 4 billion users, instead of the 64 thousand, as in the earlier kernels. Maybe they just decided to move the users up a bit, to make room for more system users.

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

At 11:05 PM 27/06/2004, Michael Satterwhite wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 27 June 2004 17:46, scsijon wrote:

...

Had a look at the unix boxes I help support, I note they all start at 1001, maybe SuSe's just setting up to the Unix standard in preparation for a takeover.

*IS* there a published standard??? If so, they missed it; they started at 1000, not 1001.

1000 is set for the useradmin's general login, limited access and rights. Maybe there is something on the ccitt website as to the standard? scsijon

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA35kBjeziQOokQnARAlTUAKCrjFyLDsMxqHDG8w9HRLhcmdVthQCbBlg/ YEXx1oflfKPbxQB8lNcVHrM= =7pY5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

-- Check the headers for your unsubscription address For additional commands send e-mail to suse-linux-e-help@suse.com Also check the archives at http://lists.suse.com Please read the FAQs: suse-linux-e-faq@suse.com

At 08:57 AM 28/06/2004, Jerome Lyles wrote:

On Sunday 27 June 2004 10:55 pm, scsijon wrote:

...

At 11:05 PM 27/06/2004, Michael Satterwhite wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 27 June 2004 17:46, scsijon wrote:

...

Had a look at the unix boxes I help support, I note they all start at 1001, maybe SuSe's just setting up to the Unix standard in preparation for a takeover.

*IS* there a published standard??? If so, they missed it; they started at 1000, not 1001.

1000 is set for the useradmin's general login, limited access and rights.

Maybe there is something on the ccitt website as to the standard?

scsijon

So our upgraded machines are still using UID 500 and the new UID 1000 is for useradmin. Does useradmin have rights that user doesn't? Should I upgrade my UID to 1000 ? What sort of problems can happen if I don't? What sort of problems can happen if I do?

Yup, they can create, change and administer the server for other users, and such other capabilities given by the System Administrator but not play with packages, configurations, networking, setups etc. I know in my case it means the save of three or four hours a week of doublehandling for each of the servers. I've given them some extras by installing the Webmin package and allowing them partial access after Individual Training. That's even made it easier for me to concentrate on what they pay me (when the need me) rather than calling me in at $$ when a local responsible person can handle these basic functions at $. It also means there is "A SINGLE-POINT-OF-CONTACT" for the server to deal with (although in reality there are two of them) and that is getting things happening faster. scsijon scsijon

On Sunday 27 Jun 2004 00:29, Michael Satterwhite wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 27 June 2004 17:37, doc wrote:

...

Michael Satterwhite wrote:

...

Does anyone know a way to (a) change the UID of my existing user and (b) globally change the UID of the files created by my user under 9.1. This needs to be done selectively ... if the file is owned by UID 1000, then it needs to be changed to UID 500.

Anyone know how to do this?

Just went through this.

You need to make use of the chown command. I believe the following is a fair summary of how the command is properly formatted:

chown -R username:groupname /home/username/filename or * for all

Sounds like this might be the reason God created the find command. <g>

Whoever in SuSE / Novell that had the bright idea of making this change without warning us at the beginning of the installation process should be nailed to a wall with a hawthorn stake through his heart. Or at least made to work in Windows for the next 12 months as penance.

12 months that all Hummmm light sentance or what 12 years more like it .

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA3ga8jeziQOokQnARAk95AKCvr0l+8qWXabrBx934voJ38I9jIQCfVYhJ gk3rRT6SenjNpbA3eAxP2qc= =4lU3 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

pete -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan PGN

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 28 June 2004 02:40, John Andersen wrote:

On Sunday 27 June 2004 23:25, peter Nikolic wrote:

...

...

Sounds like this might be the reason God created the find command. <g>

Whoever in SuSE / Novell that had the bright idea of making this change without warning us at the beginning of the installation process should be nailed to a wall with a hawthorn stake through his heart. Or at least made to work in Windows for the next 12 months as penance.

12 months that all    Hummmm   light sentance  or what    12 years   more like it .

Had an upgrade been done, it would have preserved Uids perfectly, but since a new install was done it took the liberty of using the new standard. Its not just a SuSE thing. Its the new recommended standard.

I did an inplace upgrade from 8.2 and all is well in UID world.

That part is right, then. Actually, my only complaint is that they didn't tell us "Hey! We changed things." The change itself is no big deal. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFA4C5OjeziQOokQnARAmeJAJ9xiTKEDPN9sTshkY5Zi+U89UcToACff/Wg is3vO3K/AcL7HxWvHV2lCB4= =E2AD -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Monday 28 Jun 2004 15:40, Michael Satterwhite wrote:

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

On Monday 28 June 2004 02:25, peter Nikolic wrote:

...

On Sunday 27 Jun 2004 00:29, Michael Satterwhite wrote:

...

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1

Whoever in SuSE / Novell that had the bright idea of making this change without warning us at the beginning of the installation process should be nailed to a wall with a hawthorn stake through his heart. Or at least made to work in Windows for the next 12 months as penance.

12 months that all Hummmm light sentance or what 12 years more like it .

We're talking Windows here. Make it 12 years and they might choose being nailed to a wall as being the better choice. <g> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA4C3sjeziQOokQnARAsykAJ43JvJHQHSKpOKaF+jCKeAFBKfZygCfX7qj ZaouOOfgnSEfH8+0uhpxLFE= =38oz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

OUCH ! ...:-).. Pete -- Linux user No: 256242 Machine No: 139931 G6NJR Pete also MSA registered "Quinton 11" A Linux Only area Happy bug hunting M$ clan PGN

On Sun, Jun 27, Michael Satterwhite wrote:

One user is created during install - that was the important one. No such option existed during install. I'm glad they have it fixed for downstream, though.

Reading the reports it means: Somebody creates a user with a random UID and expects, that this UID is the same as the last time? This sounds like a game of pure chance to me, if I need a user with a special UID, I create this user with this UID and don't expect that fortuna is with me ;) Thorsten -- Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de SuSE Linux AG Maxfeldstr. 5 D-90409 Nuernberg -------------------------------------------------------------------- Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B