Subject: Re: Support for ACLs
To: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
From: David Brownlee <email@example.com>
Date: 03/08/2001 17:08:40
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, der Mouse wrote:
> > [...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.
Its a reason for NetBSD to consider 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.
I want a system that provides the functionality, features, and
interface I require. NetBSD comes very close to that - much closer
than anything else.
ACLs would be of immediate use to me on a server here right now.
I'm misusing groups right now to get most of what I need.
On my laptop, I'd probably prefer to compile a kernel without
ACL support, and on my ol' sun kit definitely.
> > 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.
Another option could be some strange AFS loopback mount - bearing
in mind the requirement that unix users have the same access as
remote SMB users.
> 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.
NetBSD is a BSD, its just not 4.4BSD. Then again 4.4BSD was not
4.1BSD, and so on.
Progress is always a double edged sword.
David/absolute -- www.netbsd.org: No hype required --