[openbeos] Re: status of OpenBeOS
- From: François Revol <revol@xxxxxxx>
- To: openbeos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 00:20:25 +0200 (CEST)
En réponse à Axel Dörfler <axeld@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> François Revol <revol@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > En réponse à Leon Timmermans <openbeos@xxxxxxxxx>:
> > > Permission bytes are really outdated.
> > > Most Multi user OS'es are slowly going to ACL's , it really is a
> > > more
> > > flexible solution.
> > > permission bits really are too limited!
> > > We'd better skip that phase.
> > I know I may be "old school" (hmm I'm only 24, but hey...), but I
> > don't
> > find that many pros to ACLs...
> > Anyway I don't mind having ACLs implemented in the filesystem (even,
>
> > the attributes really make a nice place to put them (and the linux
> > proposed implementation also implements filesystem attributes on
> > purpose).
> > But I don't feel ok adding ACLs to areas, ports and semaphores...
> > it's really overkill and wouldn't just work IMO.
> > On the opposite adding a perm byte and checking perms accordingly to
>
> > UIDs/GIDs shouldn't impact performance that much.
>
> ACLs are also slower to parse - you probably don't want to have them in
>
> a high speed environment, such as ports and semaphores are.
>
That's what I meant.
Though we could maybe have a integer based list of uids and gids to
check for instead of strings at least, but IMO it's overkill.
François.
Other related posts:
