This is the mail archive of the cygwin@cygwin.com mailing list for the Cygwin project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?

From: Doug VanLeuven <roamdad at attglobal dot net>
To: cygwin at cygwin dot com
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2003 13:57:42 -0700
Subject: Re: Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?
References: <02f301c35b4a$8e792f40$017c883e@starfruit> <3F2FB51D.2090309@attglobal.net> <20030805163039.GA3817@redhat.com>

Christopher Faylor wrote:

On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 06:46:05AM -0700, Doug VanLeuven wrote:

Why isn't ntsec a mount option?

The standard reason.

Which is the standard reason? 1. It's that way because nobody has coded it yet. 2. It's that way because the core team analyzed it and believe it is best done the way it is.

--
Doug VanLeuven : 707-545-6945 (voice) 707-545-6945 (fax)
Programmer/Analyst, SCWA : doug@scwa.ca.gov
Chief Engineer, USMM : roamdad@attglobal.net

--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/

Follow-Ups:
- Re: Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?
  - From: Larry Hall

References:
- Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?
  - From: Max Bowsher
- Re: Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?
  - From: Doug VanLeuven
- Re: Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?
  - From: Christopher Faylor

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]