Anyone have any opinions on this tag? good or bad? seems a little odd to me, and seems like it might be starting to get abused by a couple of people. Here's a link to the tag. (note: there are like 6 questions edited pending approval to add it)

  • 2
    Note that you can also do not-root-user, and it automatically links to the relevant tag. – tshepang Mar 9 '11 at 20:03
  • @tshepang good tip ;) – xenoterracide Mar 10 '11 at 1:44

I think non-root could have been a better name for this tag. That said, the tag is helpful, in that it shows an important aspect of the problem. It also helps categorize questions, for example, "Installing Chrome" is one, but "Installing Chrome without root access" is another.

I also noticed that a bunch of questions have just been retagged with not-root-user, some incorrectly. Prevent non-root user from formatting a partition is an example of a question that should not have been tagged with not-root-user, because the problem doesn't involve the user not being able or not wanting to become root. Non-Root Package Managers, on the contrary, should have the tag.

  • I agree on all points except that I prefer not-root-user as the tag names. I've rolled back the tag addition to Non-Root Package Managers. – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mar 9 '11 at 21:25
  • 1
    @gilles @phunehehe no-root-access seems like it might be good, even without-root. I dunno, I don't see myself googling "not-root-user" but I might google the other 2 I mentioned. – xenoterracide Mar 10 '11 at 2:08
  • 2
    I think I like without-root, and perhaps convey's things better. what do you guys think? – xenoterracide Mar 10 '11 at 2:23
  • @Gilles you meant you rolled back Prevent non-root user from formatting a partition right? – phunehehe Mar 10 '11 at 2:27
  • 2
    @xenoterracide I think without-root is as good as non-root – phunehehe Mar 10 '11 at 2:33
  • 1
    @phunehehe but I think that "without root" is the more natural way to convey it in language. – xenoterracide Mar 10 '11 at 10:35

One way to determine if a tag is actually useful is to imagine if anyone would subscribe to it (RSS/email). Why would anyone subscribe to this tag is a bit beyond me. Most of the questions here would be on-topic for such a tag anyways (root access is a small part of system usage), so in that case I agree with phunehehe that the tag could have a better name (maybe ). But even then, is the tag that interesting? Why not just use .

Let's talk about me. I've used Debian more than any other OS, so I'm more likely to answer a question than a one. Why would one be more interested in answering questions than other questions? Is it really likely that someone would be good in one and not the other, as opposed to the case for and ?

  • 1
    That's one of the two main reasons for tags. The other is directing searches, and this tag is helpful for that (it conveys some hard-to-search information). – Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' Mar 9 '11 at 21:23
  • 4
    @gilles I think it is more fair to say that another good use for tags is grouping similar questions even if no (sane) user would actually subscribe to said tag. This is rather important. – Jeff Atwood Mar 10 '11 at 2:53
  • @JeffAtwood what is the tag for questions most likely to cause insanity in lab rats, I want to subscribe my ex to it. – hildred Dec 16 '13 at 19:57

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .