|
From: Mike F. <mf...@ma...> - 2002-03-29 18:56:11
|
On Fri, Mar 29, 2002 at 12:57:07PM +0000, Anton Altaparmakov wrote: > On Fri, 29 Mar 2002, Padraig Brady wrote: > > Is this a good default? > > I don't see what's wrong with that. It follows the logic of least > surprise. In Windows all files are executable as there is no way to > distinguish executables from non-executables due to lack of executable > bit. NTFS on Linux has no way of telling the difference either and hence > it makes sense to allow execution of all files. The difference with NTFS is that there is a possibility to have unix permissions working with it natively, with no extra visible files like with umsdos. What are you going to do when unix permissions/ACLs are supported in Linux NTFS? Default back to non executable? How much extra work would it be to map the unix executable bits to a NTFS acl? |
