Talk:Group identifier

Linux Mid‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Computing Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

The switch from 16 to 32 bits was originally not necessary—one machine or even one network did not serve more than 65536 users at the time—but was made to elimate the need to do so in the future, when it would be more difficult to implement.

The groups in Unix systems (I think) are made not for "users" management, but rather for "actions" access management. As such the quote above makes little sense and in fact, it's a bit misleading. And really - we can have some info on usual/accepted Unix permissions management policies here or somewhere else.

while this article mentions one restriction: the login group for the Superuser must have GID 0.

I see Solaris 8 has GID 1 and Solaris 10 has GID 0.

More clarity is required here. 192.193.220.144 (talk) 23:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)smg[reply]

I have never seen "PGID" being used to mean "real group ID" before. I think the author confuses it with "process group ID", which is usually shortened to PGID or PGRP. The real group ID is commonly referred to as simply the "GID". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.228.222.229 (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

primary vs. supplementary

Does the differentiation between primary and supplementary groups have any effects on a user? --Abdull (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]