From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On 3 Feb 2026 10:56:51 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

On 2026-02-03, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

A patch was submitted some years ago to add Windows-style ACL
features to Linux, but it was rejected on the grounds that they can
too often produce surprising and counterintuitive effects. Which is
something that Windows sysadmins would be all too familiar with ...

WTF are you talking about? POSIX ACLs have been a part of Linux for
a VERY long time now.

Maybe you should reread what I wrote. I didnrCOt say that Linux doesnrCOt >>support ACLs.

Also, there are no such things as rCLPOSIXrCY ACLs. the rCLPOSIXrCY ACL >>proposal never actually became part of POSIX.

Your google-fu is failing, yet again.

Actually, yours is. Lawrence is correct.

https://docs.redhat.com/en/documentation/red_hat_gluster_storage/3/html/administration_guide/sect-posix_access_control_lists

Nothing on that page claims that "POSIX" ACLs ever became part of POSIX.

This page has the history:

https://www.usenix.org/legacy/publications/library/proceedings/usenix03/tech/freenix03/full_papers/gruenbacher/gruenbacher_html/main.html

including:

"In January 1998, sponsorship for 1003.1e and 1003.2c was withdrawn.
While some parts of the documents produced by the working group until
then were already of high quality, the overall works were not ready
for publication as standards. It was decided that draft 17, the last
version of the documents the working group had produced, should be
made available to the public."
--
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> writes:

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On 3 Feb 2026 10:56:51 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

On 2026-02-03, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

A patch was submitted some years ago to add Windows-style ACL
features to Linux, but it was rejected on the grounds that they can
too often produce surprising and counterintuitive effects. Which is
something that Windows sysadmins would be all too familiar with ...

WTF are you talking about? POSIX ACLs have been a part of Linux for
a VERY long time now.

Maybe you should reread what I wrote. I didnrCOt say that Linux doesnrCOt >>>support ACLs.

Also, there are no such things as rCLPOSIXrCY ACLs. the rCLPOSIXrCY ACL >>>proposal never actually became part of POSIX.

Your google-fu is failing, yet again.

Actually, yours is. Lawrence is correct.

Actually, the API was designed by POSIX and there exists an
extant implementation. Regardless of whether they were accepted
or not, they certainly can be considered POSIX ACLs.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 15:22:08 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

Burroughs had a lot of good stuff. The problem was that no one knew
they had it. They were like a stealth company.

Lots of people knew they had good stuff. But IBM was the master
marketing machine.

John McCarthy, the father of LISP, was an IBM man. When he went to
Stanford, IBM gifted one of their machines at the same time. But the computing facility already had a Burroughs machine, which the people
there quite liked using. But he saw to it that access to it was made difficult, and so pushed everybody into using the IBM machine instead.

The Stanford administrative data center was an IBM shop from the get-go.

McCarthy was not an IBM man, he was a computers-are-a-great-tool man.

McCarthy had nothing to do with the administrative data center; he moved to the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory when he left the East Coast, where he worked on their already existing PDP-1, and was responsible for obtaining the first customer ship PDP-6 (Serial #1) for SAIL.

You've moved from troll to fucking liar.
--
Rich Alderson news@alderson.users.panix.com
Audendum est, et veritas investiganda; quam etiamsi non assequamur,
omnino tamen proprius, quam nunc sumus, ad eam perveniemus.
--Galen --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

In article <mddtsvw6ync.fsf_-_@panix5.panix.com>,
Rich Alderson <news@alderson.users.panix.com> wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On Tue, 3 Feb 2026 15:22:08 -0700, Peter Flass wrote:

Burroughs had a lot of good stuff. The problem was that no one knew
they had it. They were like a stealth company.

Lots of people knew they had good stuff. But IBM was the master
marketing machine.

John McCarthy, the father of LISP, was an IBM man. When he went to
Stanford, IBM gifted one of their machines at the same time. But the
computing facility already had a Burroughs machine, which the people
there quite liked using. But he saw to it that access to it was made
difficult, and so pushed everybody into using the IBM machine instead.

The Stanford administrative data center was an IBM shop from the get-go.

McCarthy was not an IBM man, he was a computers-are-a-great-tool man.

McCarthy had nothing to do with the administrative data center; he moved to the
Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory when he left the East Coast, where >he worked on their already existing PDP-1, and was responsible for obtaining >the first customer ship PDP-6 (Serial #1) for SAIL.

You've moved from troll to fucking liar.

He always has been.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> writes:

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On 3 Feb 2026 10:56:51 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

On 2026-02-03, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

A patch was submitted some years ago to add Windows-style ACL
features to Linux, but it was rejected on the grounds that they can >>>>>> too often produce surprising and counterintuitive effects. Which is >>>>>> something that Windows sysadmins would be all too familiar with ... >>>>>

WTF are you talking about? POSIX ACLs have been a part of Linux for
a VERY long time now.

Maybe you should reread what I wrote. I didnrCOt say that Linux doesnrCOt >>>>support ACLs.

Also, there are no such things as rCLPOSIXrCY ACLs. the rCLPOSIXrCY ACL >>>>proposal never actually became part of POSIX.

Your google-fu is failing, yet again.

Actually, yours is. Lawrence is correct.

Actually, the API was designed by POSIX and there exists an
extant implementation. Regardless of whether they were accepted
or not, they certainly can be considered POSIX ACLs.

No disagreement there. My point was that your response to Lawrence
implied he was wrong when he claimed they "never actually became part
of POSIX". He was not wrong.
--
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk>
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: alt.folklore.computers

In article <jqie5m-cph.ln1@ID-313840.user.individual.net>,
Geoff Clare <netnews@gclare.org.uk> wrote:

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Geoff Clare <geoff@clare.See-My-Signature.invalid> writes:

Scott Lurndal wrote:

Lawrence =?iso-8859-13?q?D=FFOliveiro?= <ldo@nz.invalid> writes:

On 3 Feb 2026 10:56:51 GMT, Niklas Karlsson wrote:

On 2026-02-03, Lawrence DrCOOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

A patch was submitted some years ago to add Windows-style ACL
features to Linux, but it was rejected on the grounds that they can >>>>>>> too often produce surprising and counterintuitive effects. Which is >>>>>>> something that Windows sysadmins would be all too familiar with ... >>>>>>

WTF are you talking about? POSIX ACLs have been a part of Linux for >>>>>> a VERY long time now.

Maybe you should reread what I wrote. I didnrCOt say that Linux doesnrCOt >>>>>support ACLs.

Also, there are no such things as rCLPOSIXrCY ACLs. the rCLPOSIXrCY ACL >>>>>proposal never actually became part of POSIX.

Your google-fu is failing, yet again.

Actually, yours is. Lawrence is correct.

Actually, the API was designed by POSIX and there exists an
extant implementation. Regardless of whether they were accepted
or not, they certainly can be considered POSIX ACLs.

No disagreement there. My point was that your response to Lawrence
implied he was wrong when he claimed they "never actually became part
of POSIX". He was not wrong.

Part of the problem is that Lawrence is a known troll. I think
he probably actually believes the things that he says, but he
makes subjective statements presented as fact so frequently, and
is simultaneously wrong so often, that it's hard to take
anything he says seriously.

However, like a broken watch, he's occasionally correct. In
this case, it was the spirit of the larger discussion that (I
suspect) Scott was referring to. People know what one means
when one says, "POSIX ACLs," even if the label is informal
because they were never actually incorporated into the standard.
But Lawrence delights in trying to hide behind the this kind of
rhetorical game, thinking himself very clever indeed, when in
fact he just comes across as a jackass.

He is the sort of person who is best ignored.

- Dan C.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2