Subject: Re: Support for ACLs
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Lord Isildur <email@example.com>
Date: 03/09/2001 01:08:26
this was what i said earlier today,
though i also think that as long as it is designed in such a way as to
have _complete_ bidirectional compatibility, with _no_ modification to
the existing ffs code, then the ACL-ffs will be able to coexist. I for
one will not use the acl-ffs and if if evergets to the point where something
like ACLs get irremovably stuck into the ffs code, i will start maintaining
my own ffs code and replacing the netbsd code with my own copy.
don't underestimate the importance of staying true to the BSD way. This
is after all, a BSD UNIX. I cannot overemphasize the very real danger
of totally destroying the whole reason netBSD has so far (mostly) remained
distinct and superior. A lot of this is just this intangible 'BSD way' of
doing things, which i also think to be the best way to do it. the more
we water down NetBSD in an effort to gain mainstream modern popularity,
in an environment where things like linux and windoze are popular, the more
we erode our advantage over those kind of systems!! (and alienate very
dedicated and long-term advocates of netBSD)
On Thu, 8 Mar 2001, Rick Kelly wrote:
> der Mouse said:
> >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
> >for me.
> There is nothing wrong with ACLs for FFS, however, if NetBSD is going
> to offer such a beast, then there should be two separate filesystems.
> A, NetBSD FFS
> B. NetBSD FFS w/ACLs.
> And never the twain shall meet...
> Rick Kelly firstname.lastname@example.org www.rmkhome.com