Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:

>  > >>> When someone e.g. tries to implement such a feature,
>  > >>> he or she is missing the point.
>  > >>
>  > >> Maybe so, but that doesn't mean that seeing the right username in ls -l
>  > >> output is a bad thing. It's useful.
> 
> Coda doesn't have an equivalent to "owner" or "group" rights.  The
> question is "what do you propose to put there?"

That is a good point. I hadn't thought about it initially, but I guess 
ACLs are different to owner/group permissions. In an ACL system there is 
no such a thing as an owner. A very good point.

> Sure, in your situation you may wish to (attempt to) emulate POSIX
> semantics, but Coda's suite of operations can't be restricted to that.
> 
>  > database. I know this sounds crazy, but maybe a ls replacement wrapper 
>  > that calls ls or coda's equivalent depending on what is mounted?
> 
> Seems reasonable, but it shouldn't be called "ls".

Except, as you just pointed out, ACLs and owner/group semantics are so 
fundamentally different that the best ls can hope to achieve is either 
not list the owner/group at all, or list them as some special value 
(e.g. "coda"). So might as well not bother.

Just out of interest - is chowning files in coda meaningful? Or does it 
just change the ls listed info and not change access rights in any way?

Gordan