On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 10:54:10AM -0700, 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. > > > And what would native ACL support mean for Samba? > > RichACLs'll do it, but I feel sorry for the admins :-). I was curious whether you can support that with any data (or even just anecdotes) about real-world sysadmins. The NT-style ACLs give me a headache, honestly. But that may just be because I've been involved with the implementation. Admins may have the luxury of using only the subset that they're comfortable with. --b. -- 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
