On Tue, 3 Apr 2001 wojtek@wojtek.from.pl wrote:

> i've reading this maillist archives and see long discussion about ACL
> implementing.
> 
> 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.

Yes, people pointed out other OS have ACLs. But that's not the reason we'd
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.

> if you like system that implement everything new and trying to
> complement (or to compete with) windoze or keeping on with all new
> commercial features it's already done. 
> 
> 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
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.

As I said above, the utility of ACLs for the NetBSD community will be why
we will (or won't) add ACLs. Not because Linux does or doesn't have them.

> and it's the reason why i moved to netbsd.
> 
> i found old ideas in UNIX very functional, smart and simple in the same
> time. file access permission system is excellent and no need to change.

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.

> 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.

> 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. :-)

Take care,

Bill