Re: What is the maximal length of usernames on Solaris?

From: Richard L. Hamilton (Richard.L.Hamilton_at_mindwarp.smart.net)
Date: 12/28/03 

Date: Sun, 28 Dec 2003 20:15:59 -0000

In article <p8vtuvsldk8uj3120a6ti4hmmrv6aav927@4ax.com>,
        Josh McKee <jtmckee@rm-bogus-ac.net> writes:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2003 10:41:40 -0500, grog <greg@or.y> wrote:
>
>>In article <0vrtuv8jjhb5ci080ne1an287mjnm6k5cp@4ax.com>, jtmckee@rm-
>>bogus-ac.net says...
>>> What you fail to understand is that I am not advocating that you
>>> ignore the current 8 character limit and give users a longer user ID.
>>> What I am proposing is increasing the 8 character limit to something
>>> more reasonable. What is reasonable? I don't know but 8 characters
>>> appears to be insufficient in many cases.
>>
>>No matter what length a username is, that length will not be
>>satisfactory for some reason.
>
> Perhaps...but don't you think that a user ID length of 32 would likely
> be more satisfactory than 8? I'm not saying go crazy and build the
> system to accommodate 4096 character user ID's. But it is obvious that
> 8 characters is to short in many circumstances.
>
>>Eight letters. is too short, and the usernames are too cryptic? Fine, let's
>>make the length twenty letters. Whoops, now users cannot remember their
>>usernames!
>
> Again...it's unlikely that the user will forget their user name if it
> is their name without any truncation. It's easier to remember first
> initial full last name than it is first initial seven characters of
> their last name.

Negligibly so. All you really have to remember is that it's what you want,
only shorter.

>>Damn! Okay, let's make the length twelve letters. But that's too short for people
>>with really long names! (Round and round we go, where it stops nobody
>>knows.)
>
> No...you come up with a standard such as first initial and last name.
> It would be foolish, as you're suggesting, to limit user IDs to a
> certain number of characters.
>
>>> So we shouldn't work to improve the system? That's fine...but don't be
>>> surprised when people prefer Windows of UNIX.
>>
>>People who whine about petty *** such as how long a username can be
>>should just forget all about any *nix system and stick with Windows.
>
> It seems that they are.
>
>>Those people are just going to 1001 more trivial, shallow so-called
>>problems to moan about on a *nix system.
>
> The system should accommodate their needs instead of them having to
> accommodate the system. Funny...I thought computers were to help us,
> not the other way around.
>
>>There are far more important things to worry about than the fact that
>>your username has to be "jmckee" instead of "josh_mckee".
>
> Apparently not to the users. And if the system cannot accommodate
> their needs then maybe the system should be changed to do so. And if
> it cannot they'll go somewhere else.

What part of "that's not a _need_" don't you understand. It's a _want_.
Yeah, well I want my system to fetch me a beer, and take the cap off too
(I like the expensive bottled stuff, that generally doesn't have screw-off
caps). Why don't I go look for an OS that'll do that for me? Sheesh!

> I've said this before but I'll say it again. I've encountered this
> problem many times when trying to sell people on UNIX. They see this
> limitation, along with a number of other "non-important" (to SAs)
> limitations, and opt to go with Windows.
>
>>I mean, c'mon. Next we'll hear moaning about how *nix uses a forward slash in
>>directory paths, but Windows uses a backward slash. How awful!
>>Somebody call Ashcroft and beg him to make it go away!
>>
>>> Windows is giving the end users what *they* want. That's one of the
>>> reasons that it's been so successful.
>>
>>It's a question of what users -need-, not what they want.
>
> It's also a question of what they want. Computers should accommodate
> users wants as well as their needs.
>
>>They "want" the entire world handed to them on a silver platter. They seldom
>>know what they really need.
>
> There's that arrogance showing through.

No, that's a fact. They don't think about this stuff for a living, they
just use it. Now, if this were totally trivial and could be done quickly
with no adverse consequences, I suppose some more of us would agree with
you. But it isn't, and because doing it properly means changing the
standard (which is a matter of consensus and cannot be dictated by any one
company, government, power, or deity), it can't happen quickly. There's
already an RFE in for it on Solaris, AFAIK, it's just not high enough on
the list to have gotten very far, esp. since a proper solution is a
standards based one and not just something Sun goes off and does on their
own.

>>I think Windows is successful for two main reasons: (a) Nothing else is mainstream
>>because Microsoft has pretty much monopolized the PC OS market,
>
> Which they did by giving people what they wanted. They listened to the
> user sand made a fortune by giving them what they wanted.
>
>>and (b) It has a very low learning curve, which is a polite way of saying it appeals
>>to morons.
>
> I would say just the opposite. Intelligent people chose the easier of
> two ways.

Intelligent people invest an effort in learning how to use their tools
proportionate to the amount of flexibility they anticipate needing in
their uses of the tool. That means that if all you do is data entry, then
for all I care you can use Windows; but if your work involves doing
something almost every day that's a bit different than what you've done
before, then I think Windows may not be your best choice. Windows is
memorize the menus; Unix is learn the tools. The latter is more flexible,
obviously. 

-- 
mailto:rlhamil@smart.net  http://www.smart.net/~rlhamil