From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <85e39b08c2610d853d7e85a323d2ab46@collyer.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] book chapters
From: Geoff Collyer <geoff@collyer.net>
From: geoff@collyer.net
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SUN.3.90.1030627173421.29163A-100000@magnum.cooper.edu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 15:12:56 -0700
Topicbox-Message-UUID: df8514ee-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> [...] has anyone found the lack of ACLs limiting?

I haven't, because groups serve nicely as ACLs, especially since they
take effect as soon as you tell the file server "users", unlike Unix,
where each process carries around a list of groups, so you essentially
have to login again to join another group, and there are usually
smallish limits (8 or 16) to the number of groups a process can be in
at once.

I wonder if the people who rave about ACLs are actually attached to
some aspect of a particular implementation, much like the people who
raved about Smalltalk or Lisp machines but were really just interested
in the window systems, not the languages (especially in the case of
Lisp).