Subject: Re: fs acl's
To: Giles Lean <email@example.com>
From: Dustin Sallings <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 01/28/1998 00:30:17
> On Tue, 27 Jan 1998 23:31:10 -0800 (PST) Dustin Sallings wrote:
> > Are there any plans to support filesystem ACL's Solaris style? I
> > just
> > discovered this, and it would make my life a *lot* easier in a lot of
> > places:
> I don't like ACLs. This may be mere prejudice, but:
> o no two Unix versions implemented them the same way (HP-UX, Solaris,
> any others?)
> o adding them effects too much code, and not just the kernel either:
> - filesystem code
> - dump and restore
> - tar, cpio etc (optionally, and frequently not changed by vendors)
> - ls, chown, chmod, ...
> All in all, I've found that a creative use of group memberships and/or
> the odd setgid binary has worked sufficiently well to allow me to
> avoid ACLs.
> I hesitate to think what happens with ACLs and NFS!
*sigh* The more I think about it, the less useful it seems, really. If
I add myself to one more group, my SunOS machine gets very mad at me. My CVS
repository is on a NetBSD machine, and there are a couple of people who share
it with me. I guess I could gain just as much by moving it to a Solaris
machine for the things I need. It just seemed like a neat idea.
Taos Mountain TS My girlfriend asked me which one I like better.
pub 1024/3CAE01D5 1994/11/03 Dustin Sallings <email@example.com>
| Key fingerprint = 87 02 57 08 02 D0 DA D6 C8 0F 3E 65 51 98 D8 BE
L_______________________ I hope the answer won't upset her. ____________