ACLs in Linux were tacked on later; not everything supports them properly. They were built into Windows NT from the start and are used consistently across kernel and userspace, making them far more useful in practice.
Also, as far as I know Linux doesn't support DENY ACLs, which Windows does.
Some of us can! I certainly enjoy doing it, and according to "man 5 acl" what you assert is completely false. Unless you have a particular commit or document from kernel.org you had in mind?
See 6.2.1 of RFC8881, where NFSv4 ACLs are described. They are quite similar to Windows ACLs.
Here is kernel dev telling they are against adding NFSv4 ACL implementation. The relevant RichAcls patch never got merged: https://lkml.org/lkml/2016/3/15/52
I see what I misunderstood, even in the presence of an ALLOW entry, a DENY entry would prohibit access. I am familiar with that on the Windows side but haven't really dug into Linux ACLs. The ACCESS CHECK ALGORITHM[1] section of the acl(5) man page was pretty clear, I think.
Haha, sure. Sorry, it's not you, it's the ACLs (and me nerves). Have you tried configuring NFSv4 ACLs on Linux? Because kernel devs are against supporting them, you either use some other OS or have all sorts of "fun". Also, not to be confused with all sorts of LSM based ACLs... Linux has ACLs in the most ridiculous way imaginable...
