From: J. Bruce Fields on
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?

And what would native ACL support mean for Samba?

--b.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
From: Jeremy Allison on
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 :-).

Jeremy.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo(a)vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/