Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 11 Aug 2000 18:18:29 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | Re: NTFS-like streams? |
| |
On Fri, 11 Aug 2000, Michael Rothwell wrote:
> The whole whorehouse wouldn't be moved, or shell-subsitutited. If you > had a > file, "myfile", which had three streams named "1", "2" and "3", on a > streams- > aware filesystem, all you see in "ls" is "myfile", not "myfile:1", > "myfile:2", > etc. And to copy or move the file, you just "copy myfile" and the > streams go > with it.
So how the hell can you open() it if it's invisible?
> Granted, there will still be issues with userspace tools like cp. Rm and > mv > will not have an issue, unless mv is moving across volumes. Cp and mv > will > have to enumerate and copy all streams. Rm will not need to enumerate > streams; > if you delete a file with streams, all the streams go with it.
And what will do cat(1)? tar(1)? cpio(1)? vi(1)? What, kludging the thing into each application? What happens when I patch(1) the text file with some properties? Are they gone? Preserved? What happens when I diff(1) two files? What, BTW, happens with pipes? Redirections?
Linux is UNIX. Extending it may be OK, but ruining the stuff that already works (and works _well_) in exchange for, pardon me, No Taste, erm, New Technology... No Thanks.
If NT programmers' code requires things that are incompatible with the requirements of UNIX programs - well, you know where to find NT if you need it.
Either propose the semantics compatible with the normal UNIX one or show that you can and will patch the userland so that it would keep working. In _all_ cases. Again, if it boils down to the choice between the normal UNIX scripting and k3wlNT3D1T0R - sorry, the former wins. Unconditionally.
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |