Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!amdahl!pyramid!prls!philabs!linus!raybed2!cvbnet2!aperez
From: aperez@cvbnet2.UUCP (Arturo Perez Ext.)
Newsgroups: comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Unix bigotry
Message-ID: <476@cvbnet2.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jan 89 19:13:34 GMT
References: <1135@raspail.UUCP>
Sender: root@cvbnet2.UUCP
Lines: 31

From article <1135@raspail.UUCP>, by bga@raspail.UUCP (Bruce Albrecht):
> In article <1989Jan9.114312.26821@ateng.ateng.com>, chip@ateng.ateng.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>> "No ability for file and system security" indeed.
>> 
>> I think the real bigotry here is quite obvious.
> 
> Actually, Unix's file security is quite crude.  Because it doesn't have access
> control lists for files, the only way to permit a file to specific users is
> to create new groups (if one is allowed) that include only those users.  Last
> time I checked, it didn't have guardian procedures, either.  I find it ironic
> that I have to explain in detail to Unix zealots why the group mechanism is
> inferior to the access control list mechanism for file permission.  Unix has
> a lot of nice features, but file permissions isn't one of them.


This may be true.  But most of the file security niceties your talking
about haven't made it into most other OS either.  For example, last time
I looked VMS and IBM VM do not have guardian procedures.  And VMS has had
access control lists only within the last couple of revs.

You may validly claim that Unix is not up to date in these respects but
please bear in mind that only recently has IBM/VM gotten multitasking, 
about 10-15 years after Unix was originally written with that feature.

About the only operating system which had all these features together
was multics but it is going the way of the dinosaurs :-(

Finally, an editorial.  Why do people complain about Unix bigotry via
USENET, which is an almost exclusively Unix controlled resource?  This
isn't the first time I've seen it.  I believe it indicates masochism
on the part of the poster :-)