On 19/05/2011 16:14, Darren New wrote:
> On 5/19/2011 1:35, Invisible wrote:
>> Perform volume maintenance tasks: Administrators
>
> OK, thanks!
>
>> Also in there is "take ownership of files". In other words, bypass ACLs.
>
> Take ownership isn't exactly bypass ACLs.

No. But if you can take ownership of a file, you can give yourself 
permission to access it, even if you didn't have that permission to 
start with. In other words, it allows you to bypass ACLs.

(Which is just as well, because our project management application 
occasionally deletes the ACL list for files, which makes them rather 
difficult to work with...)

>>> Maybe if you're doing it thru the explorer?
>> How else would you change a file's permissions?
>
> Via the API that explorer uses.

Well, yeah, if I were a C programmer that might be an option. :-P

>>>> Oh yeah. TRWTF is 8.3 names.
>>> What about them?
>> They still exist. And grown up programs sometimes end up using them.
>
> Oh, well, yes. Backwards compatibility and all.

Backwards compatibility = EVIL!

>> I mean, if you want to launch a program from the CLI, you just type its
>> name. But there isn't a command like "open Blue.ogg" which will fire
>> up the default application and load the named file.
>
> start index.html
>
> The command is "start".

And that works for any file type which Windows has a file association for?

>> Actually, you know what? There's probably one type database for KDE,
>
> Originally it was Apache that needed it, since Apache had to deliver
> mime types based on file extensions or content.

Well, no, Apache doesn't need to know what to open it with at all. It 
just needs to know what MIME type to claim it is. (Which might 
potentially vary on a file-by-file basis in a way unrelated to the 
extension on the name...)

>> In short, it's an incoherent nightmare, just like almost everything
>> else in Unix.
>
> A strength and a weakness.

The Unix philosophy: Every tool should do one job, and do it well.

Unfortunately this leads to 25 different tools doing the same job 
equally poorly in incompatible ways. Hence why your typical Linux distro 
has (for example) a dozen different packages which implement MD5.

>> I see... I think! o_O
>
> It was a nice idea. You could install fonts into the global space, or
> into the executable for the word processor, or into an individual
> document that used that font. You could localize a program after it was
> completely finished just by adding resources to the executable. Stuff
> like that.

Still not really seeing why you need this implemented at the filesystem 
level, but yeah...

> Oh, and chunks of code were also resources, so by calling code chunks,
> you'd wind up loading dynamically the appropriate code resources, so you
> got overlays for free, basically.

Do overlays matter any more? (Clearly they did once...)

Post a reply to this message