Subject: Re: Support for ACLs
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: der Mouse <mouse@Rodents.Montreal.QC.CA>
Date: 03/08/2001 17:38:22
>> 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.
and then I see this, which seems to me to be an example of the sort of
thing I'm talking about:
> Whether ACLs should be added to the NetBSD source tree should never
> be based on arguments of "it's not the BSD way" and "I don't like
> them in my system." That decision should be based *solely* on
> whether it benefits a decent number of users without negatively
> impacting others.
These "should"s may indeed be the way NetBSD wants to go, but they are
not the only possible - nor even the only reasonable - criterion to use
when deciding whether something is to go into the tree.
I'd also like to point out that balancing whether something "benefits a
decent number of users without negatively impacting others" will
*always* be a judgement call. For example, NetBSD has done several
things that have "negatively impact[ed]" me. I've even said so; in a
couple of cases, I've been quite vocal in saying so. Yet they went in
and so far have stayed in. Presumably whoever represented NetBSD in
making those decisions decided that losing me was worth something else
(the feature, the users the feature was expected to attract, personal
convenience, whatever) - my point is that it is not the question of
fact that this phrasing makes it sound like, but rather one of opinion.
Also, "it's not the BSD way" and "I don't like it" *are* negative
impact, for people who want to run a system they like (and, for the
former, like `the BSD way', whatever that is). I think this may be one
of the reasons this bothers me so: that negative impact is very real
7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39 4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B