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* being
able to give away Full Control to other
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
UH-OH! Maybe it's IBM's fault:
Those OS's used forward slash as the option
indicator on command line utilities. In their
earliest form, neither had hierarchical directories,
so there was no conflict. When UNIX-style paths
appeared in DOS 2.0, to avoid breaking compatibility
with existing BAT
, and
grep these days? DIR and TYPE at least made some sense, even if PIP didn't. :)
-Original Message-
From: Dragan Krnic [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2003 12:26 PM
To: Michael MacIsaac
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [Samba] Re: Full wNT/w2K ACL conformance
UH-OH
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*
