Nicholas Miell writes:
> With all the recent discussion about ACLs and Linux on
> linux-kernel, I was wondering why the ACL implementations
> for Linux are based off the withdrawn POSIX 1003.1e draft
> 17?
As a group, we are short-sighted herd followers.
> Is there any particular reason why this was chosen for
> the basis for the Linux ACL system, besides the fact
> that its what everybody else did? (It is a only a
> withdrawn draft after all, there's no reason to actually
> follow it...)
>
> Wouldn't a more flexible solution, perhaps one based on
> the NFSv4 ACL design[1] be better?
Of course it would be better, but then we'd all argue over
the details. (compatibility, API, user interface...)
> Because the NFSv4 design is in effect a superset of the
> POSIX 1003.1e draft functionality, all Unix filesystems
> with ACLs could be easily supported by the Linux VFS, and
> the task of implementing NFSv4, NTFS, and SMB would be
> made easier[2] because of it.
Sure. Problem is, few have seen NFSv4 ACLs. There is also a
prejudice against anything that even remotely resembles NT,
never minding if it is better or is what businesses want.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Nov 23 2001 - 21:00:18 EST