| 1 |
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 4:31 PM Wol's lists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
> |
| 3 |
> On 09/06/18 18:09, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 4 |
> > I feel like this is something that Windows natively gets "better" than |
| 5 |
> > POSIX. They have a concept of UIDs being specific to a machine or |
| 6 |
> > authentication server (or domain as they call it), and this concept is |
| 7 |
> > enforced at the host level. That said, I'm sure this approach has its |
| 8 |
> > downsides as well, in particular it is certainly more complex and at |
| 9 |
> > work we practically forbid any kind of windows ACLs at anything other |
| 10 |
> > than the top mount level because it is so hard to control. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Windows is better than POSIX?! That doesn't say much for POSIX then, |
| 13 |
> seeing as I feel Windows ACLs are overly complex and difficult! |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
I wasn't talking about the ACLs (in fact I pointed out the issues with |
| 16 |
those). I was talking about the UIDs, which in windows are made of |
| 17 |
two components so that users on one domain can have access to |
| 18 |
resources on another domain, without having to replicate the UID |
| 19 |
databases. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
-- |
| 22 |
Rich |
Archives