File Permissions in Nautilus

Agree 100%

UNIX permissions **SUCK**!! They are nearly useless in an enterprise environmentmnet.

But that isn't the only thing very wrong with this. The group ownership is a combo box (drop down menu?). What a usability nightmare, when many environments have over a hundred groups (driven in part by UNIX's crappy traditional file permission scheme).

Have you never worked in a corporate environment? ACLs are too complex for most users to grasp, and the operating system is prone to screw things up for you as well. I can't tell how many times I've sat down to reset ACLs ("apply changes to all subfolders and files") because the user or Windows itself has messed things up.

For instance when installing a Terminal Server, all users get write access to all kinds of folders on the server (including c:\). Great job Microsoft! This problem is then compounded by the ACLs in the Windows registry.

We actually run scripts nightly to reset the ACLs on c:\ and critical sections of the registry in order to prevent users from screwing up the system. From my point of view ACLs **suck** compared to UNIX permissions.

>Have you never worked in a corporate environment?

Nice perjorative! But yes, for more than a decade.

>ACLs are too complex for most users to grasp, and the operating
>system is prone to screw things up for you as well. I can't tell
>how many times I've sat down to reset ACLs ("apply changes to all
>subfolders and files") because the user or Windows itself has messed
>things up.

Funny, we have huge volumes on XFS with ACLs. User's change ACLs on files via the security tab in Windows Explorer. Works great. And the alternative would be? Let user's create POSIX groups?

>For instance when installing a Terminal Server, all users get write >access to all kinds of folders on the server (including c:\). Great >job Microsoft! This problem is then compounded by the ACLs in the >Windows registry.

This has nothing to do with ACLs as a technology. Like the registry, it is a failure of implementation (if indeed it is a failure, we also run TSE without any significant issues).

>You sound like an expert, but I just wonder how a system which has been >in use for 40+ years in entreprise environments worldwide can be >"nearly useless".

Because the world changed in 40 years. Machines support more users with more complex relationships.

>Also, ACL, as implemented in windows, result in everyone being >administrator,

Complete and total rubbish.

>because it's so hard to have anything really working with it
>(all the companies I've seen where computers are not only use for
>trivial tasks work this way).

Eh?

>And the unix permissions "suck" so bad that they block most of >security holes... unlike ACLs.

Rubbish.

This asusme most, or even many, users have access to the administrative password. I doubt this is true. It is a good idea, but would been to be something that could be disabled via gconf.

You couldn't have counted my comment, as comment was split, in that I am glad someone was fixing them, but a button should be clearly marked.

You do have a point, in that, I believe that people should reconise that someone worked to make progress for everyone.

Why did users have to clamor about file permissions issues for years?
If people complained about feel permissions for years, and no one did anything, there is something wrong with the way designers/programers are addressing feedback. It would seem that the present system doesn't work, and when people speak up here--you fault them for it.

I'm the one complaining about ACLs. I really can't feel great about changes in Nautilus, because those changes neglect real needs, concentrating on minor things. They do not really improve situation, there is still to little control in this dialog. I am using ACLs daily, I even succeded at explaining them to my family. But every time ACL operation is needed I have to resort to shell commands. I can't expect other users of my computer to know shell. They know how to change basic permission by clickety-click.
Changes shown above are really cosmetic. Which is really sad by itself, as ACL in Nautilus already got implemented and lost. See http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/alvaro?entry=nautilus_acl_support

--
:wq

I prefer the Dialog with the Checkboxes :) *vote*
Suns ACL Dialog ist horrible, by no chance you could add this to GNOME Mainstream. What happens when you don't have ACL Support? Should the Dialog disappear, or should the tab be inactive?

Nautilus needs a good Plugin Framework so that someone (who needs it) could make an Nautilus-ACL Plugin.

er, hello? Have you ever tried to explain the concept of recursiveness to people? Remember how long it took before you got it yourself?

but "folders" got me confused. Let it say "include contents and subfolders"

Recursive: "It means that permissions are applied to everything in that folder, even other folders, and their contents, and so on."

Oh yeah, that's just a crazy concept that makes no sense whatsoever. It took how long to explain that?

I had no problem learning it and never had a problem explaining it. Adding new diction that is in no way any less ambiguous is not only poor design but bad cognitive practices. There is nothing wrong with the term "recursive." Why force the issue into two? People either know what recursive does (which are now forced to learn something new; you may see this as trivial but an overabundance of trivial learning adds up) or they don't and are learning something new that is localized only to GNOME.

If you are going to use different terminology make sure it is simply intuitive or just don't use it.