consider the backslash. Was there any need for it,
given that Unix slash was in existence for decades
when DOS came around? No, just like much of so
called ACLs, it is a way to lock the installed base
away from recognized standards to proprietary
captivity.
In July 1981, Microsoft
, 2003 11:05 AM
To: Michael MacIsaac
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Samba] Re: Full wNT/w2K ACL conformance
consider the backslash. Was there any need for it,
given that Unix slash was in existence for decades
when DOS came around? No, just like much of so
called ACLs
Never attribute to malice that which can adequately be explained by stupidity.
Or in this case, an attempt at compatibility for users who had come from the DEC
minicomputer world.
DOS 1.0 took a lot of it's command line conventions from CP/M, which got them from the
old DEC stuff. RT-11,
On 18 Jun 2003 at 15:39, Dragan Krnic wrote:
The show-stopper right now is this: we need to be
able to assign real Full Control permissions: a
user who has Full control on a directory should
be able to Read, Write, eXecute ( of course) [ this
can be easily achieved with ACLs ] *plus*
