On Fri, 2004-04-02 at 10:51 -0500, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > then why would you make "doe" a member of "staff" in the first place? > again, i *know* what you're getting at. what i'm arguing is that many of > the examples i see promoting the use of extended permissions, including > ACLs, are little more than a misuse of standard permissions. My specific case: 1 application server is run with user AS 2 application's files are own by user A 3 AS must be able to read application files (but not write) 4 application's files should not have any 'o' permissions. 5 production users must be able to change application files > > > unless i've totally misread what you were getting at. > > You must've missed the point of ACLs. > > au contraire, i understand ACLs pretty well. all i'm harping on is the > sometimes lame examples people use to justify their existence. there's > enough *good* justification for ACLs that one shouldn't need to dredge > up *bad* justification. :-) Ok, sorry for misunderstanding you! :) Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
