On 05/12/10 23:59, Bernhard D Rohrer wrote:
[snip]
> indeedy. I am just wondering why this mechanism is not more often used or even
> the default. I find it much preferable to the concept of giving high access
> permissions on the FS level and then restricting those in a config file. It
> somewhat limits your choice of FS (I use JFS) if you have a server for more
> than a few people, but I see no other downside.
[snip]
It might be that the downside is complexity - not in setting things up but in
maintaining file permissions and ACLs accurately. Remember that as soon as a
user is hindered due to file permissions, out comes the proverbial 'chmod
0777' hammer, without thought to security implications.
In the case of SAMBA/CIFD/etc. I rather suspect that the creators and
maintainers of the service tread the fine line between trying to emulate
functionality supported by the protocol but allowing flexibility to use
whatever filesystem you like at the back end. I personally appreciate being
able to use an ext3 filesystem but serve it out via CIFS to those machines
that don't want to support NFS.
Best regards,
-->Gar
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
