Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Message-ID:	<3F2FB51D.2090309@attglobal.net>
Date:	Tue, 05 Aug 2003 06:46:05 -0700
From:	Doug VanLeuven <roamdad AT attglobal DOT net>
User-Agent:	Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4a) Gecko/20030401
X-Accept-Language:	en-us, en
MIME-Version:	1.0
To:	cygwin AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?
References:	<02f301c35b4a$8e792f40$017c883e AT starfruit>
In-Reply-To:	<02f301c35b4a$8e792f40$017c883e@starfruit>
X-MailScanner:	Found to be clean

Why isn't ntsec a mount option?

Max Bowsher wrote:

>Having ntsec on by default has shown us that the imperfect mapping between
>ACLs and file modes can cause a *lot* of problems. Essentially, for ntsec to
>be useful, a fair amount of caring for permissions is required. New users
>are often not prepared for this. Hence: what about making ntsc off by
>default again?
>
>
>If not, I guess the ntsec code needs to be spun off into a seperate library,
>where setup can get at it too.
>  
>
-- 
Doug VanLeuven



--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

- Raw text -