On Friday 2010-08-13 19:54, Jeremy Allison 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. Well, for one, ACLs in NT can be recursive IIRC. You can't say that of Linux ACLs - instead you have to setfacl -R and setfacl -Rd to give one user access to a directory and all its subdirs including future new inodes. -- 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
