Subject: Re: Support for ACLs
To: None <email@example.com>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 03/08/2001 11:31:43
>> [...] the 'non supportive' people were right [...]
> [...Windows...] ACLs provide a set of functionality that is very
> useful for some people.
This sounds as though you believe that just because soeemthing is "very
useful for some people" is reason enough for NetBSD to do it.
And you may be right; that's certainly the direction NetBSD has been
going the past year or two - more users is unquestionedly good, almost
regardless of what damage has to do be done to the system to attract
them. Indeed, I've seen messages that seem to have been written from
an attitude that by definition, anything that attracts more users
cannot damage the system.
I disagree; if you want Linux, you know where to find it.
> If you do not think putting support in the UFS layer is the right
> solution, suggest a better one, or step up and say you do not think
> his problem should be solved by NetBSD.
I didn't write the double-quoted text above, but I support it.
I too think the NetBSD kernel is not the right place to solve this
problem. It may be possible to do it in userland (eg, a userland Samba
or WINS server that keeps ACLs in a parallel filesystem tree), but I
really don't think it belongs in the kernel.
Not that anyone gives a rat's patootie what I think, except a few other
nutcases who want NetBSD to remain (go back to being, actually) a BSD,
like greywolf and isildur.
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B