On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:06:28PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote: > > 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. You do realize that Windows does exactly the same thing under the covers, right ? Watch SMB or SMB2 traffic between a client and Windows server when someone changes an ACL sometime :-). Jeremy -- 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
