Date: Mon, 5 May 1997 10:48:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Pierre Phaneuf <pp AT 55-174 DOT hy DOT cgocable DOT ca>
Reply-To: pierre AT tycho DOT com
To: OpenDOS Mailing List <opendos AT delorie DOT com>
Subject: Re: A few FS notions
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSI.3.96.970505161742.6017C-100000@hoth.amu.edu.pl>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970505104640.7789A-100000@55-174.hy.cgocable.ca>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, 5 May 1997, Mark Habersack wrote:

> > I vote for showing Unix-like permissions and faking them with weak
> > filesystems.
> I vote in favor, too. But there;s no need to fake'em - provided that we
> implement the "resource" extensions. One of the resources would be an extended
> attributes doubleword to store all possible attributes.

I mean for the meantime, while we still use a FAT-like FS... When we
implement resources, a doubleword using bitmask isn't such a great idea
IMHO... While we're at having resources, why not have a "permission"
resource, a "owner" resource, a "group" resource and so on?

Pierre Phaneuf