From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Aug 28 11:46:09 2008
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 48D781065672
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:46:09 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl
	[IPv6:2001:4070:101:2::1])
	by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 645678FC25
	for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>;
	Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:46:08 +0000 (UTC)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (localhost [IPv6:::1])
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2) with ESMTP id m7SBk25g064694;
	Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:46:02 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Received: from localhost (wojtek@localhost)
	by wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl (8.14.2/8.14.2/Submit) with ESMTP id
	m7SBk1oZ064691; Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:46:02 +0200 (CEST)
	(envelope-from wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl)
Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:46:01 +0200 (CEST)
From: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
To: Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>
In-Reply-To: <20080828064905.83cb034c.wmoran@potentialtech.com>
Message-ID: <20080828134204.W64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Cc: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: defrag
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 11:46:09 -0000

> 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.