> > that made me worried very much.
> 
> That's why the first person asked for them. That's not the only (or even
> the main) reason we want to do them.

for me it's reason agains ;) 

> > i'm talking about software, not hardware
> 
> So I shouldn't have done the layered file system work I did? That's
> software only. We shouldn't have new file systems, like NTFS? We shouldn't

you mean NTFS is good?

> have a unified buffer cache? We shouldn't have scheduler activiations? We

we should - it's for improving performance.

> shouldn't tune the kernel for better performance? All of these things are
> software.
> 
reread my sentences please.

> > > 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
> 
> > > 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.
> 
> Did you read Phil's notes? How do you put yourself in 17 groups at once?

never have need for that
> > > > 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.
> 
> Where have I mentioned Windows 2000?
nowhere.
> 
> Ahh. If you thought that ACLs came from Windows, then yes, I can see your
yes.
> confusion. ACLs, as I think Bill Sommerfeld mentioned, are older than
> UNIX. I'm not really sure what the best ACL reference is. But try to find
> out some on permissions for AFS, or the security part of DCE. I hope other
> folks will contribute references too. These are all very UNIX-centric ACL
> environments.

any URL please?