X-Recipient: archive-cygwin AT delorie DOT com
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.5 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Message-ID: <4AFCEE6A.3060409@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 05:28:10 +0000
From: Dave Korn <dave DOT korn DOT cygwin AT googlemail DOT com>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.17 (Windows/20080914)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject: [OT] Re: ID command returns mkgroup
References: <CC93624851A47D42AFD22FB06BCD2D9A02DA8EEB AT CORPUSMX80B DOT corp DOT emc DOT com> <4AFB0EEA DOT 4020806 AT cygwin DOT com> <CC93624851A47D42AFD22FB06BCD2D9A02DA8FE5 AT CORPUSMX80B DOT corp DOT emc DOT com> <4AFB527A DOT 1040007 AT cygwin DOT com> <CC93624851A47D42AFD22FB06BCD2D9A02E223AF AT CORPUSMX80B DOT corp DOT emc DOT com> <4AFC3695 DOT 5050400 AT cygwin DOT com> <4AFC9E82 DOT 7090401 AT gmail DOT com> <4AFCCD46 DOT 20900 AT cygwin DOT com>
In-Reply-To: <4AFCCD46.20900@cygwin.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Id: <cygwin.cygwin.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post: <mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help: <mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com

Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
> On 11/12/2009 06:47 PM, Dave Korn wrote:
>> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2009 09:14 AM, Dexter_Michael AT emc wrote:
>>>> Should my ID output be the same as when I log into a unix server
>>>> here, or would it be different?  My cygwin is running on a Windows 
>>>> workstation so maybe it is grabbing my AD groups as opposed to my NIS
>>>> groups.
>>> 
>>> The former.  Cygwin operates on Windows to create a POSIXy environment 
>>> on Windows.  It's not a Linux/UNIX VM running on Windows.
>> 
>> ITYM "the latter".  Grabbing the AD groups is exactly what is going on. 
>> (I'm inferring that Mike is in a heterogeneous environment with 
>> essentially separate user accounts on the Unix and Windows sides, based
>> on YP/NIS and AD respectively.)
> 
> Since we're in violent agreement about what was meant, I don't think it 
> really matters however "former" refers to the first of two things
> mentioned. The "latter" refers to the second. 

  I know exactly what the terms mean, but I took your answer as being a reply
to the question:

>>>> Should my ID output be the same as when I log into a unix server
>>>> here, or would it be different?

rather than a response to the not-really-a-question-more-a-hypothesis:

>>>> My cygwin is running on a Windows
>>>> workstation so maybe it is grabbing my AD groups as opposed to my NIS
>>>> groups.

  I think your usage is a bit peculiar here.  Try each part on its own:

a)
>> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2009 09:14 AM, Dexter_Michael AT emc wrote:
>>>> Should my ID output be the same as when I log into a unix server
>>>> here, or would it be different?

>>> The former.

  Here, "the former" is factually wrong, it should be "the latter", but the
overall construct makes grammatical sense.

b)
>> Larry Hall (Cygwin) wrote:
>>> On 11/12/2009 09:14 AM, Dexter_Michael AT emc wrote:
>>>>   My cygwin is running on a Windows
>>>> workstation so maybe it is grabbing my AD groups as opposed to my NIS
>>>> groups.
>>>
>>> The former.

  Here, it is indeed "the former" of the two things that is going on, but the
form of the response is grammatically odd in reply to a sentence that isn't an
explicit question.  It needs a verb.  "The former is occurring", or "Yes,
that's what is happening" would sound more natural.  Or even just plain "Yes";
it's not asking "(A) or (B)?", so a response indicating A or indicating B
isn't right; it's asking "(A and not B)?", to which a yes/no response seems
appropriate.

  I thought you were doing a) rather than b), so misguidedly corrected that
error, only because it was (under that reading) factually incorrect (the
correct response being "the latter - your ID output would be different"); I
wouldn't have bothered to pick nits with your grammar for its own sake but the
unusual formation misled me about the meaning of the sentence.

  Heh.  Total communication breakdown.  I corrected what I thought was one
error instead of a second one, then you thought I had misunderstood a third
thing rather than a fourth!

    cheers,
      DaveK


--
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple