Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help@cygwin.com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin@cygwin.com Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:24:26 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin@cygwin.com Subject: Re: Permissions, again Message-ID: <20050822202426.GI17452@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin@cygwin.com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin@cygwin.com References: <20050819194352.GA28538@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> <20050819202459.GA23900@SDF.LONESTAR.ORG> <20050820085926.GS17452@calimero.vinschen.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2i On Aug 22 13:00, Shankar Unni wrote: > Corinna Vinschen wrote: > > >use POSIX permissions with POSIX permission rules -> ntsec, > > use Windows permissions with Windows permission rules -> nontsec > > Err, isn't that sort of a backwards terminology? When I see the word > "ntsec", I read it as "use NT SECurity", vs. "NO NT SECurity" (i.e. > something else, e.g. POSIX).. > > Perhaps the confusion might be reduced if the option were called > posixsec or noposixsec.. Perhaps we just keep it as it is so not to break scripts and applications which check for this option? The original meaning is "make use of NT security" vs. "don't make use of NT security". The view point is from the Cygwin code perspective which uses NT security functions for permissions if ntsec is on, or doesn't use any NT security stuff at all if ntsec is off. Corinna -- Corinna Vinschen Please, send mails regarding Cygwin to Cygwin Project Co-Leader mailto:cygwin@cygwin.com Red Hat, Inc. -- 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/