Date: Fri, 08 Aug 2003 00:30:12 -0700 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@tcoip.com.br> Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ACLS on UFS2 from FreeBSD 5.1-RELEASE install. Message-ID: <3F335184.A84ECFDB@mindspring.com> References: <1059854534.46751.0.camel@acheron.livid.de> <3F311492.9080309@tcoip.com.br> <3F31E42E.87379C0A@mindspring.com> <3F323FD7.6090903@tcoip.com.br>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > You'll also notice I'm not questioning the _existence_ of ACL. My point > is that FreeBSD is Unix (no matter what the lawyers say), and people > don't usually think of ACL when they think of Unix. Ergo, enabling ACL > by defautl violates POLA. Not if you never *set* an ACL on anything. It's only when there are ACL's set on things that POLA may be violated. One presumes that an ACL has to be set on purpose... > And, in FreeBSD, POLA is king. > > (Or so we used to believe, no matter what we actually did. :) I'd be astonished if that weren't true. 8-) 8-). -- Terry
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3F335184.A84ECFDB>