Buchan Milne wrote:
David Walser wrote:
Martin Fahrendorf wrote:
This seems to be a thing for samba with acl. If you are using ext3 or
xfs you can simply change/add acls to the files and directorys and you
can give permissions similar to windows nt (a group/person can read,
others can write and others can execute).
Yeah he had tried ACL before (I thought it was capable of this), but was
much happier with trustees for some reason.
Maybe because he did not know about default ACLs (setfacl -D). It does
not seem as if trustees have more rights than posix ACLs (things like
modify, full control etc that are available on windows).
Maybe.
But trustees are more netware-ish, ACLs more window-ish, but the thing
with ACLs is that you can manipulate them easily from a windows machine
(either nt/2k/xp pro native or win9x with some additional software).
Yeah, we were moving off of a Netware file server.
The explanation of why trustees are better than ACLs on this site:
http://trustees.sourceforge.net/ is thus incorrect. Setting ACLs from
windows will AFAIK by default set default ACLs, so his argument that
there is no easy way to set ACLs through the system is incorrect.
But I still wander if there are any advantages to trustees?
I'll ask why he wasn't happy with ACL.
