| 1 |
Wols Lists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 11/06/18 09:54, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
| 4 |
> > Well, "Windows ACLs" is the only ACL system that is standardized (as part of |
| 5 |
> > the NFSv4 standard). The old proposal in POSIX.1e from 1993 from Sun has been |
| 6 |
> > withdrawn in 1997 since the customers did not like it. |
| 7 |
> > |
| 8 |
> Ummm - just because it's standard doesn't mean it's any good :-) |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Is is a result of a common discussion. At the same time, when Sun introduced |
| 11 |
NFSv4 ACLs, IBM and Apple did the same for their local filesystems. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> This version I'm talking about dates from about 1983. The company making |
| 14 |
> it went bust in 1991. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
What are you talking about? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
IIRC, the first ACLs have been on VMS in the late 1980s. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
> I've just had a quick look at the NFS v4 RFC, and almost the first thing |
| 21 |
> I see is DENY entries. These ACLs don't have deny, because it's |
| 22 |
> pointless. And DENY is exactly why I think Posix/Windows ACLs are |
| 23 |
> confusing and hard to use. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Your text looks confusing. You claim DENY entries and no DENY entries in the |
| 26 |
same paragraph without explaining what you are talking about. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Jörg |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
-- |
| 31 |
EMail:joerg@××××××.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin |
| 32 |
joerg.schilling@××××××××××××××××.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ |
| 33 |
URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sf.net/projects/schilytools/files/' |
Archives