On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 09:06:28PM +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
quoted text
> 
> On Friday 2010-08-13 19:54, 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.
> 
> Well, for one, ACLs in NT can be recursive IIRC. You can't say that of Linux
> ACLs - instead you have to setfacl -R and setfacl -Rd to give one user access
> to a directory and all its subdirs including future new inodes.

You do realize that Windows does exactly the same thing under
the covers, right ? Watch SMB or SMB2 traffic between a client
and Windows server when someone changes an ACL sometime :-).

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