Mailing-List: contact cygwin-help AT cygwin DOT com; run by ezmlm List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: cygwin-owner AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Delivered-To: mailing list cygwin AT cygwin DOT com X-Info: This message was accepted for relay by smtp03.mrf.mail.rcn.net as the sender used SMTP authentication X-Trace: UmFuZG9tSVZIypHkjArqUJ2cnEm16+H/oKe12n+FC1k6xeyNlby7MI7HXsDO9wYe Message-ID: <3F2FD09D.5040603@cygwin.com> Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 11:43:25 -0400 From: Larry Hall Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Max Bowsher CC: 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> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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. Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought that (or something similar) was always the plan. It sounds like forward motion to me as opposed to the alternative. -- Larry Hall http://www.rfk.com RFK Partners, Inc. (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office 838 Washington Street (508) 893-9889 - FAX Holliston, MA 01746 -- 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/