In some email I received from Tobias Weingartner, they wrote:
> 
> > 
> > And it would *definately* be better than HP-UX!  Well, if we could
> > add on partition striping, cdf's and acl's (yes I like them both :) -
> > ACL's at least (if working) could help NetBSD towards being suitable for
> > a higher rating then "C2" (I guess most people don't care about that but
> > some do) - then, mmmm :-)

I'm curious, why do people think ACL's suck on HP-UX ? The interface
provided or the way access is checked ?

Having looked at the inode structure for both HP-UX and OSx5 (both have
ACL's available), it seems that using a reference in the inode to another
inode to store the ACL seems to be the way to go.  And the last time I
looked at the NetBSD inode, that was all the room that was left :-O
Some OS's (such as BugOS) use 'vacant' bytes for other silly things >:-/

How are other others done ?  I've seen AFS mentioned, what about AIX ?

I don't particularly care for the separate file method, personally (it
could clog up directory entries and marking the file as being an ACL
would be interesting too :).

darren