Can Any one give me some design documents of samba.

[Matt Zinkevicius]

> No, that's not true. The only NT admins I've ever spoken to who actually
> understood the difference between such a simple thing as "object inherit",
> "container inherit", and "inherit only" were working for the US miliatary.

(goes and look up the various inherit differences) Yeah, those silly admins
:-)

> You don't *have* to support all customer demands, especially if they're
> unreasonable (ie. NT ACL semantics) - you can just choose not to serve
> the customers who insist upon this ("Let them eat Windows" :-). Does
> your market research data tell you that all customers need NT ACL
> semantics or is this just a case of a PHB saying "NT does it so we
> must" ?  That way lies very poor code.

Actually we are doing it to stay competitive. Other appliances already
provide this so we must get as close as we can. Don't shoot the engineer :-)

> I very much doubt that *anyone* has gated access to COM objects using
> much more than users & groups with read and write. POSIX ACLs are
perfectly
> suitable for that of course. Anything more than that is unmanageable on
> more than a trivial scale.

Sorry, but I know you are wrong here. I did my time at Microsoft, and I've
seen many a loony access rights on objects. Remember in NT ACL's the lower
16 bits of the access mask are "object specific" and have different (& very
sensable IMHO) meanings for COM objects (vs. files). But lets stop arguing
about this since we all seem to agree that NT ACL's, w/ regard to files, is
bigtime overkill :-)

> I'm disagreeing with you, but I'd still like to see the patch :-).
> Especially as you seem to have done most of the things I was
> wondering about doing myself :-) :-).

Disagreeing about my patch's speed? design? or just NT ACL usefullness? I am
looking forward to getting some more eyes on this code, since I'm not
claiming to be an expert and this is my first samba hack.

--Matt