On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Jeremy Allison <jra@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:54:32AM -0400, J. Bruce Fields wrote: >> On Sun, Aug 08, 2010 at 06:05:01AM -0700, Jeremy Allison wrote: >> > We don't need to ape Windows in everything. >> > The coming ACL disaster will show that (we will go from an ACL >> > model that is slightly too complex to use, to one that is impossibly >> > complex to use :-). >> >> Care to elaborate? > > POSIX ACLs -> RichACLs (NT-style). Not criticising Andreas here, > people are asking for this. But Windows ACLs are a nightmare > beyond human comprehension :-). In the "too complex to be > usable" camp. Not much choice - even community colleges now have to teach students about this ACL model in their sysadmin courses. >> And what would native ACL support mean for Samba? > > RichACLs'll do it, but I feel sorry for the admins :-). Yes - RichACLs and Windows ACLs allow you to set some strange combinations of permssion bits. RichACLs will make a more natural mapping for Samba and NFSv4 - and it is far too late to remove the requirement for Windows and MacOS (among other clients) support. -- Thanks, Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
