Controversial what if.... we disable ntsec by default again?

[Larry Hall]

Doug VanLeuven wrote:

> Christopher Faylor wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 06:46:05AM -0700, Doug VanLeuven wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> Why isn't ntsec a mount option?
>>>   
>>
>>
>> The standard reason.
>>  
>>
> 
> Which is the standard reason?
> 1. It's that way because nobody has coded it yet.
> 2. It's that way because the core team analyzed it and believe it is 
> best done the way it is.
> 


The standard reason is "because we're mean".

To answer your question about which of the two options above explain
why 'ntsec' is not a mount option, the answer is both.  Of course, if
someone contributes (1) and it's convincing, then that just means that
(2) now applies to this new implementation.  :-)


-- 
Larry Hall                              http://www.rfk.com
RFK Partners, Inc.                      (508) 893-9779 - RFK Office
838 Washington Street                   (508) 893-9889 - FAX
Holliston, MA 01746


--
Unsubscribe info:      http://cygwin.com/ml/#unsubscribe-simple
Problem reports:       http://cygwin.com/problems.html
Documentation:         http://cygwin.com/docs.html
FAQ:                   http://cygwin.com/faq/