> Now, I don't see any reason to deny chown() to a normal user given that
> quotas are not enabled; i.e. if there are no quotas, should one not be
> able to give away files?  (This is a simple #ifdef in the kernel.)

> (in a development environment, it is sometimes desirable to be able to
>  give files away so as not to trouble super-users with niggly little
>  file-permission problems...  You could argue this, and someone probably
>  will.  I still think this is not out of line.)

> I was wondering if there should be a "nochown" (or "chown", if the nochown
> would be the default) flag for the ufs filesystem.

you can allow users to chown files by making the chown utility suid
to root.  When a user-level solution for a site specific option such
as this is available I say leave the kernel alone.

>  _______Wizardry is dead._____ _____WHO: Greywolf (my nameplate even says so)
> 	see also: gandalf@netcom.com