|
Shaggar posted:lol @ a bunch of Linux losers hating on ntfs. go back to your hosed up file systems that don't even have working permissions, let alone auditing, encryption, or compression. NTFS really needs some kind of central ACL database instead of defining permissions individually on each object
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 01:03 |
|
|
Shaggar posted:there are dynamic ACLs now but I haven't really looked into it. you're always going to need some kind of descriptors on the object otherwise theres no way to know how to secure it. sure but if you're trying to do a mass permissions change its absolutely painful to touch every single object when you could just be defining it on a parent object and then when you access an object have it parse the local ACLs and then the parent objects for anything that should be propagating to it. a db of folder hierarchy and permissions could do that, while leaving the clutter of individual file ACLs local to the object. would add a small amount of overhead to normal access but worth the trade-off when it comes to administrative tasks and who really cares about a bit of extra latency for some shared departmental drive. or maybe dynamic acls fixes that and I haven't kept up[
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
if you're starting from fresh that's fine, but when you're inheriting a gigantic lovely mess of legacy bad choices its extremely painful to fix and plenty of places are in that boat. then the merger or re-org or whatever happens and the permissions structure that you carefully laid out no longer works and new use cases come up and now you're touching every object again and hoping like hell someone didn't set something along the chain to block inheritance and gently caress everything up in the process. who cares if you tack a few ms on to the front of a file access request for a file server? the overhead is imperceptible to the user. I wouldn't advocate it as the default filesystem mode, but it would be useful for file server volumes
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 17:22
|
|