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

[Larry Hall <cygwin-lh at cygwin dot com>]

Doug VanLeuven wrote:

> 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.


The standard reason is "because we're mean".

To answer your question about which of the two options above explain
why 'ntsec' is not a mount option, the answer is both.  Of course, if
someone contributes (1) and it's convincing, then that just means that
(2) now applies to this new implementation.  :-)


--
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746


--
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/