guy@netapp.com (Guy Harris) writes:
The problem seems to be related to the different way the root is defined beetween Linux and Unix : unix : root GID is 1 linux : root GID is 0
Actually, there exist flavors of UNIX that use 0 as the root group:
hostname$ uname -sr SunOS 5.8 hostname$ egrep '^root' /etc/group root::0:root
hostname2$ uname -sr HP-UX B.11.00 hostname2$ egrep '^root' /etc/group root::0:root
and the root UID is 0 on all flavors of UNIX I know of.
I think there's some confusion about what what was meant by "the root group" here. Certainly in Solaris 2+ the group with gid 0 is named "root" (unlike systems with a BSD flavour where it is usually called "wheel"). But the login group for root is not that one but the one with gid 1:
$ uname -sr SunOS 5.8 $ egrep ^root /etc/passwd root:x:0:1:Super-User:/:/sbin/sh $ egrep :1: /etc/group other::1:
This will usually be the real & effective gid in a session as root, including one initiated by the "su" command. This really is an ancient and common tradition in Unix(-like) systems: L(inux)I(s)N(ot)U(ni)X does seem to be rather the odd one out in having rationalised the login group for root to be gid 0.
But all this is almost certainly beside the point, because I agree with Guy when he says...
I suspect the more likely explanation is that the person who sent the original mail might not have had the filer exporting the file system in question with root permission to the client he was using, as somebody suggested in another mail message.
Chris Thompson University of Cambridge Computing Service, Email: cet1@ucs.cam.ac.uk New Museums Site, Cambridge CB2 3QH, Phone: +44 1223 334715 United Kingdom.