"Inherit Permissions" request for comments

Mayers, P J p.mayers at ic.ac.uk
Sun Jun 4 15:12:58 GMT 2000

Well, I disagree. But the default ought to be igo=no anyway, so no-one is
forcing the use of this. "More like NT" is the entire point as far as I'm
concerned - if I want to use Unix (and I do) I'll shell in, or use a CODA


-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Samuelson
To: p.mayers at ic.ac.uk
Cc: samba-technical at samba.org
Sent: 6/4/00 1:17 PM
Subject: RE: "Inherit Permissions" request for comments

[Mayers, P J <p.mayers at ic.ac.uk>]
> I wholly agree with obeying the setgid if igo=no.  To do otherwise
> would be bad behaviour of the highest order.

<aol>me too</aol>

> It *might* be useful (I can't see myself ever using it) to have a
> "force inherit group owner"

Stop it already!  You're sick!  Sick, sick, sick! (:

My opinion on the matter is that "inherit group owner" isn't needed at
all.  I still can't see what's wrong with setgid directories, which
have always worked fine for me, thankyouverymuch.

I don't find "To be more like NT" very compelling.  We're not NT.

I also don't find "So people who expect NT semantics won't have to
learn about setgid" very compelling.  If they're willing to hunt down
"igo" in `man smb.conf', they can find setgid.

BUT.  If people insist, it should at least be called "ig", because
"igo" is redundant.


More information about the samba-technical mailing list