Another issue is, do we need file-level ACLs? would directory-granularity 
ACL's (a la AFS) meet most peoples' requirements? 

or, have we already decided this issue in the previous round of intense ACL
debate a couple weeks ago?.. 

isildur

On Tue, 3 Apr 2001, Rick Kelly wrote:

> The point that I haven't seen answered is why not have two file
> systems. One being bog standard FFS and the other being FFS with
> the addition of ACLs?
> 
> >I would like to be able to use NetBSD where I currently use Solaris at
> >work, but I can't, for this and other reasons.  Saying "if you want that
> >you have to not use NetBSD" is not a winning argument to my ears.
> 
> As a consultant I work with SunOS4, Solaris, AIX, HPUX, and various
> versions of DEC UNIX. You can't use ACLs across those platfroms either.
> And there's still Unixware, SCO OpenServer, MPE/IX, Dynix/ptx and others
> out there. ACLs are good when you need them, but if you don't then they
> are just useless overhead in the filesystem.
> 
> -- 
> Rick Kelly  rmk@rmkhome.com  www.rmkhome.com
>