Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:46:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com> Cc: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <20080828134204.W64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> In-Reply-To: <20080828064905.83cb034c.wmoran@potentialtech.com> References: <20080827172946.5a1d4103@gom.home> <6C9E353A-3008-4E28-910C-212DBB9F6E28@bsdhost.net> <200808272208.47468.mike.jeays@rogers.com> <20080828055600.736f3447@gumby.homeunix.com.> <20080828064905.83cb034c.wmoran@potentialtech.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> MS was focused on building a filesytem that could store the outrageous > ACLs they wanted, and that was non-trival so - as usually - they quickly implemented OS/2 filesystem (at best, assuming no stolen code), and added their bloat then. performance is never a priority in Microsoft. exactly opposite is true. High quality of windows will kill Microsoft, few would buy new versions then. > (look at how long it took the > BSDs to have native file-level ACLs). because in unix they are not actually needed. users&groups system is just perfect. i don't know anyone here that actually use ACL under unix because he/she needs it. POSSIBLY it's needed for samba users to allow using this on windoze clients.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20080828134204.W64545>