Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com; run by ezmlm
Sender: cygwin-owner AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Message-Id: <199908222138.QAA08957@mercury.xraylith.wisc.edu>
To: Corinna Vinschen <corinna AT vinschen DOT de>
cc: Emanuele Aliberti <ealiberti AT hotmail DOT com>, cygwin AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com
Subject: Re: FW: Description of the new 'ntsec' feature 
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 22 Aug 1999 23:26:44 +0200."
             <37C06B14 DOT 6B06DF98 AT vinschen DOT de> 
Date: Sun, 22 Aug 1999 16:38:12 -0500
From: Mumit Khan <khan AT xraylith DOT wisc DOT EDU>

Corinna Vinschen <corinna AT vinschen DOT de> writes:
> > Did you check how POSIX security is emulated in the Interix subsystem
> > against NT's security?

Interix is "special" since it uses its own subsystem, and has the added
advantage of running on NT only. I don't believe looking at Interix is
that productive. A more comparable implementation in this regard is AT&T 
UWIN, and it does go to some length to handle permission and so on (via 
two services on NT, and somewhat braindead on Win9x).

> No. It's a "clean room implementation". I don't want to look how it's
> solved in other systems but I want to hear discussions and opinions
> how to do our own implementation.

That's the best way, especially when it comes implementing proprietary
interfaces as well as emulating proprietary implementations.

Regards,
Mumit


--
Want to unsubscribe from this list?
Send a message to cygwin-unsubscribe AT sourceware DOT cygnus DOT com