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 Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:24:26 +0200 From: Corinna Vinschen To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Subject: Re: Permissions, again Message-ID: <20050822202426.GI17452@calimero.vinschen.de> Reply-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com Mail-Followup-To: cygwin AT cygwin DOT com References: <20050819194352 DOT GA28538 AT SDF DOT LONESTAR DOT ORG> <20050819202459 DOT GA23900 AT SDF DOT LONESTAR DOT ORG> <20050820085926 DOT GS17452 AT calimero DOT vinschen DOT 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 AT cygwin DOT 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/