On 12/06/18 09:44, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wols Lists <antli...@youngman.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 11/06/18 09:54, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>>> Well, "Windows ACLs" is the only ACL system that is standardized (as part 
>>> of 
>>> the NFSv4 standard). The old proposal in POSIX.1e from 1993 from Sun has 
>>> been 
>>> withdrawn in 1997 since the customers did not like it.
>> Ummm - just because it's standard doesn't mean it's any good :-)
> Is is a result of a common discussion. At the same time, when Sun introduced 
> NFSv4 ACLs, IBM and Apple did the same for their local filesystems.
>> This version I'm talking about dates from about 1983. The company making
>> it went bust in 1991.
> What are you talking about?

Pr1me. Okay, I don't remember most of the dates accurately, but Pr1mos
19.4 had a working Access Control List setup. I was using that on their
Pr1me-2250 machines, at a company I left in 1984. (Wikipedia says the
2250 was released in 1982. I can't find a date for 19.4.)
> IIRC, the first ACLs have been on VMS in the late 1980s.
>> I've just had a quick look at the NFS v4 RFC, and almost the first thing
>> I see is DENY entries. These ACLs don't have deny, because it's
>> pointless. And DENY is exactly why I think Posix/Windows ACLs are
>> confusing and hard to use.
> Your text looks confusing. You claim DENY entries and no DENY entries in the 
> same paragraph without explaining what you are talking about.

The RFC talks about deny entries.

Pr1me ACLs didn't have deny, because it doesn't make sense in that context.
> Jörg

Reply via email to