> > PLEASE DO NOT DO IT! it's not an argument that it's needed "because it
> > will make easier to use both windoze and netbsd in the same network".
> 
> Please keep reading the thread. If all you got out of the arguments for
> was, "Other OSs do it," then you didn't read close enough.
probably. 
> Yes, people pointed out other OS have ACLs. But that's not the reason we'd

i've read that ACL should be implemented because new samba make use of it
and it make file serving for windoze users better etc.etc..

that made me worried very much.

> add ACLs to NetBSD. The reason was in the thread - we'd add it because
> people have used ACLs on other OSs AND FOUND THEM USEFUL. ACLs' utility is
> why we'd add them to NetBSD.
> > it's name is linux!
> 
> Linux supports sound on my Beige G3 Powermac. So are you saying that if I
> want sound on it, I should switch to Linux? That's where your arguement

no. you should try to write driver for netbsd :)

i'm talking about software, not hardware

> would lead me. Do you not see how restrictive that arguement is? Because
> you're basing the arguement on what Linux does rather than the quality of
> an inovation, the arguement stifles all inovation.
no
> 
> I think it's great that the permissions system works excelently for you.
> But are you the only user of NetBSD? No (since I am a NetBSD user and I am
> not you I know the answer's no :-) . So how do you know that just because
> you don't need ACLs, no one else does? Phil Nelson pointed out a case
> where ACLs would have been VERY useful. Other folks noted where they would
> find ACLs useful. So ACLs have utility to NetBSD users.

how difficult is to use /etc/groups more intensively?
it's really ease.
 
> > please make already good UNIX better even more instead of bloating with
> > "very much needed features".
> > 
> > making netbsd popular OS is important, but making it good, smart and
> > proffesional (in good meaning) is far more important.
> 
> And from having worked at and talked with coleagues from high-performance
> computing centers, ACLs (if done right) will make NetBSD a much more
> professional OS.

no. i do not mean "professional" as "windows 2000 professional" means.
 
> > popularity != quality.
> 
> Agreed. But as I said (many times) above, other-OS feature lists aren't
> why we're interested in ACLs, the fact we find them useful is. :-)

maybe i'm wrong. could you point me to some page about ACL (about idea,
not windoze centric). maybe i could educate more.