On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 07:13:34PM +0100, Ivan Voras wrote:
> 2008/11/7 David Schultz :
> > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008, Ivan Voras wrote:
> >> That would be desirable if we want file system semantics to be a
> >> property of the OS instead of individual file systems. (Though I don't
> >> know if there's ever been a conscious decision about this particular
> >> goal).

> >
> > I don't agree with this. The access control rules are
> > fundamentally a property of the filesystem. Nobody expects msdosfs
> > or ntfs to have the same semantics as UFS, for instance.
> > Furthermore, even if you hacked up all the local filesystems to
> > support the "FreeBSD rules" (as a recent commit seems to have
> > done), you'd still get different semantics for remote NFS and AFS
> > mounts.

>
> There's a fundamental difference between the three groups of file
> systems: UFS and ZFS are native local file systems created for Unix,
> MSDOSfs is definitely an odd, foreign file system, while NFS and AFS
> are network file systems nobody trusts anyway


The point is that if you are concerned about these things then you
should be checking what file system you are using anyway, and therefore
there is no point in changing ZFS to match UFS. ZFS ACLs are completely
disparate to UFS ones, for example, so what's the proposal to fix that
difference?

Ceri
--
That must be wonderful! I don't understand it at all.
-- Moliere

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQFJFK88ocfcwTS3JF8RAjHlAKCNA99Q1Bm0/nlXRDtTOdkYCQD9awCfehMT
HOuLmOqR3yzaCNfISG7XILs=
=LVsM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----