Date: Thu, 28 Aug 2008 13:56:27 +0200 From: Svein Halvor Halvorsen <svein.h@lvor.halvorsen.cc> To: Wojciech Puchar <wojtek@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl> Cc: RW <fbsd06@mlists.homeunix.com>, Bill Moran <wmoran@potentialtech.com>, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: defrag Message-ID: <48B6926B.2040006@lvor.halvorsen.cc> In-Reply-To: <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> <20080828134204.W64545@wojtek.tensor.gdynia.pl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Wojciech Puchar wrote: >> (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. That's one man's opinion. > i don't know anyone here that actually use ACL under unix > because he/she needs it. It depends on your definition of "need", I guess. The groups file could always be the power set[1] of the passwd file. Svein Halvor [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_set
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?48B6926B.2040006>