From: dan@djph.net   
      
   On 2025-06-05, lisa wrote:   
   > On Thu, 5 Jun 2025 01:22:22 -0000 (UTC), Dan Purgert    
   > wrote:   
   >   
   >>>>In general terms, the easiest approach is installing from scratch on the   
   >>>>new hardware, and then copying your $HOME across.   
   >   
   >>You are mistaking "/home" for $HOME.   
   >   
   > yep, I did.   
   >   
   >> Debian / Ubuntu / Mint all set the first user (created at   
   >>boot) as UID=1000; regardless of the name (and the numerical ID is what   
   >>matters).   
   >   
   > my UID is 1000 and all the files in $HOME has as owner and group my   
   > username in Permissions. Do you say that if I copy $HOME to another   
   > computer that first name has no problems with executing the programs   
   > because the UID is the same and the owner names don't matter?   
      
   $HOME is for personal documents (downloads, that book you've been   
   meaning to finish writing, homework assignments, photographs, whatever   
   else you create) and personalized settings (typically in $HOME/.config,   
   though not always).   
      
   In the general case, this means that no *programs* happen to be   
   installed there; and as such, the effects of broken $HOME directory   
   ownership / permissions are primarily going to be related to "look and   
   feel" rather than "does the program run".   
      
   As for the username / group name, if we are limiting the discussion to   
   "what the system shows as owning user and owning group when running   
   commands like 'ls -l' ", then yes, the names themselves are nothing more   
   than a "friendly" mask to the actual ID numbers.   
      
   --   
   |_|O|_|   
   |_|_|O| Github: https://github.com/dpurgert   
   |O|O|O| PGP: DDAB 23FB 19FA 7D85 1CC1  E067 6D65 70E5 4CE7 2860   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)