theoretical question - can root's username be changed?

[Claude Jones]

On Thu December 1 2005 10:36 pm, Craig White wrote:
> Best to save feeble attempts of security through obscurity for Windows.

I'm trying to get at a deeper understanding of the thinking that underlies 
Linux architecture - that's really the motivation of this thread. Your 
rhetoric, while it may be true, doesn't help. Why the word 'feeble'?  If 
everyone in the Linux world knows that the chance is good that there is a 
user called 'root' on any given Linux box, and that user has nearly 
unrestrained privileges, why would it be feeble to double the guessing that 
must go on to get at root's privileges, by changing his username. What is the 
advantage of every Linux system having this same user, 'root'? I make it a 
point when securing a Windows server of always deleting the administrator 
account and creating a new account with membership in administrators for 
administration purposes. Why is that concept flawed, or feeble, as you put 
it? It pretty much goes downhill from there with Windows, but, I see nothing 
wrong with that particular feature. 
-- 
Claude Jones
Bluemont, VA, USA