Supporting POSIX *users* (was: Re: Does supporting POSIX applications require ACLs?)

[olafBuddenhagen]

Hi,

> I'm not convinced that we have to support ACLs.  I think the question
> needs to be asked: how many applications rely of ACLs?  Many
> applications just open files and read and write some bytes.  For these
> applications, the fact that access is granted based on an ACL, a
> capability or something else is immaterial: if open succeeds and
> returns a file descriptor to the named file then all is well.

The most important piece is missing in your picture: The user.

When RMS decided to go for a UNIX-like system, although he considered it
inferior, he didn't do so because of existing POSIX applications. (In
fact, at that time practically no free POSIX applications existed.) He
did so because of the users who were *familiar* with UNIX, so they could
easily switch.

There is no point in building one more completely different system that
happens to allow running POSIX applications. Shapiro is already working
on such systems, and probably others. Why would we want to compete with
those?

What we want is a system that, at least at the surface, *feels* like a
UNIX system. Of course, as users and hackers become more proficient with
the Hurd, they will use the advanced non-POSIX features more and more;
but all this is additional bonus, *not* a thing the users should be
confronted with against their will.

The GNU system was to improve on UNIX in non-intrusive ways, and so is
it's kernel, the Hurd.

-antrik-