Mailing-List:	contact cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm
List-Subscribe:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-subscribe AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Archive:	<http://sources.redhat.com/ml/cygwin-developers/>
List-Post:	<mailto:cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com>
List-Help:	<mailto:cygwin-developers-help AT cygwin DOT com>, <http://sources.redhat.com/ml/#faqs>
Sender:	cygwin-developers-owner AT cygwin DOT com
Delivered-To:	mailing list cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Date:	Thu, 25 Jul 2002 18:00:34 +0200
From:	Corinna Vinschen <vinschen AT redhat DOT com>
To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Subject:	Re: Turn on ntsec by default?
Message-ID:	<20020725180034.D24674@cygbert.vinschen.de>
Reply-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
Mail-Followup-To:	cygwin-developers AT cygwin DOT com
References:	<20020725144200 DOT GA10502 AT redhat DOT com>
Mime-Version:	1.0
In-Reply-To:	<20020725144200.GA10502@redhat.com>
User-Agent:	Mutt/1.3.22.1i

On Thu, Jul 25, 2002 at 10:42:00AM -0400, Chris Faylor wrote:
> At one time a year or so ago, I turned on ntsec by default in the cygwin
> dll.
> 
> I'm wondering if it would be worthwhile to do that again.
> 
> It's likely that we'd be trading some "Why chmod not work???" questions
> for "Why it say permission denied!!!" but I wonder if the benefits would
> outweigh the drawbacks.
> 
> I know that ntsec only works on NT and NTFS and it would probably make
> sense to turn off smbntsec by default if we did this.  But it seems like
> this could still be a win.
> 
> Any opinions?

Do you really need mine? ;-)

Corinna

- Raw text -