| 1 |
On 12/06/18 09:44, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
| 2 |
> Wols Lists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
>> On 11/06/18 09:54, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> Well, "Windows ACLs" is the only ACL system that is standardized (as part of |
| 6 |
>>> the NFSv4 standard). The old proposal in POSIX.1e from 1993 from Sun has been |
| 7 |
>>> withdrawn in 1997 since the customers did not like it. |
| 8 |
>>> |
| 9 |
>> Ummm - just because it's standard doesn't mean it's any good :-) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Is is a result of a common discussion. At the same time, when Sun introduced |
| 12 |
> NFSv4 ACLs, IBM and Apple did the same for their local filesystems. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
>> This version I'm talking about dates from about 1983. The company making |
| 15 |
>> it went bust in 1991. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> What are you talking about? |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Pr1me. Okay, I don't remember most of the dates accurately, but Pr1mos |
| 20 |
19.4 had a working Access Control List setup. I was using that on their |
| 21 |
Pr1me-2250 machines, at a company I left in 1984. (Wikipedia says the |
| 22 |
2250 was released in 1982. I can't find a date for 19.4.) |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> IIRC, the first ACLs have been on VMS in the late 1980s. |
| 25 |
> |
| 26 |
>> I've just had a quick look at the NFS v4 RFC, and almost the first thing |
| 27 |
>> I see is DENY entries. These ACLs don't have deny, because it's |
| 28 |
>> pointless. And DENY is exactly why I think Posix/Windows ACLs are |
| 29 |
>> confusing and hard to use. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> Your text looks confusing. You claim DENY entries and no DENY entries in the |
| 32 |
> same paragraph without explaining what you are talking about. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
The RFC talks about deny entries. |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Pr1me ACLs didn't have deny, because it doesn't make sense in that context. |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Jörg |
| 39 |
> |
Archives