>> > IMHO, HP-UX acls are yucky and evil.  Almost as bad as HP-UX context 
>> > dependant files.

>> Try to learn from VMS (DEC). There you can see how to implement ACLs!

>i've not used VMS acls, but...  (somebody's going to shoot me for this 8-)
>i'm _really_ starting to like AFS ACLs...  8-)

Actually, somebody is going to shoot me with high-powered artillery
for this, but Windows NT does a great job with ACLs also.

AFS' weakness, of course, is that you can't protect individual files
-- the ACLs are directory specific.  (Although, in general, I do like
AFS ACLs.)

Windows NT allows for file-level, directory-level, and share-level
ACLs.  It's one of the places where it shows that NT was almost
multi-user.  Of course, you do have to use the gross File-Mangler uh,
Manager, to get full control of all these ACLs.

It's no wonder that NT has good ACLs, though, considering that Mr. NT
is former Mr. VMS.

>> [ I'm still dreaming of VMS/i386 or an Alpha box at home. :-( ]

I would call that a cold-sweat nightmare!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Michael L. VanLoon                                 michaelv@HeadCandy.com
       --<  Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free un*x  >--
     NetBSD working ports: 386+PC, Mac, Amiga, HP300, Sun3, Sun4, PC532,
                           DEC pmax (MIPS R2k/3k), DEC/AXP (Alpha)
     NetBSD ports in progress: VAX and others...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------