Re: Linux-kernel-daily-digest digest, Vol 1 #171 - 281 msgs

[Bill Crawford]

vda wrote:

> Hmm. I thought proper group management can let you live with std UNIX
> file permissions model... NT ACLs are horrendously complex.
> "Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler"

 You can, but there are situations where you end up with a combinatorial
explosion of groups to accommodate a matrix of possible permissions on
things.  And there is another significantly limiting factor which is the
restriction on the number of groups a process can belong to (currently
32 I believe).

 I think ACLs are a good solution to the problem, and indeed are what
*should* have been done originally ... however I suspect that would have
added a significant overhead to the original UNIX, and one of the great
benefits at the time was that UNIX was designed to run on pretty low-end
hardware.  VMS was a heavyweight beast on VAXen, did it ever run on PDP
machines?  There was a complex system :o)

 I'm thinking of Solaris' ACLs rather than NT, I don't know much about
the latter so I can't really comment on them.

> It is legitimate to do that. Do I really have to explain?

 No, I know what you're trying to do.  I have done it myself many times.
Why some sources come packed so they're only readable by root is beyond
me :o)

> I have a script which is designed to sweep entire tree starting from /
> and do some sanity checks. For example, it Opens Source:
> 
> chmod -R -c a+R /usr/src
> 
> 8-)

 OK, point conceded, although I can live with two passes for that sort
of thing.  Yours is a neat solution in fact.

> --
> vda

-- 
/* Bill Crawford, Unix Systems Developer, Ebone (formerly GTS Netcom) */
#include <stddiscl>
const char *addresses[] = {
    "[e-mail]", "[e-mail]",     // work
    "[e-mail]", "[e-mail]"                    // home
};