[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [12]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: NTFS-like streams?

    On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
    > > I'd much rather have an implied mount happen automatically (if the forks
    > > are to be done with a mount-like internal implementation) for the user
    > > when he encounters a file with forks. So that people can just write
    > > scripts etc, and without the user having to care about the details.
    > They will want it for tar(1). Immediately. And for rpm. And for all weird
    > shit handled by things like mc(1). Mark my word, you will get a _huge_
    > recurring flamewar on hands.

    That's ok.

    There's a very legitimate difference between a filesystem designed for
    something (ie HFS or NTFS resource forks are an integral part of the
    filesystem) and a cool hack a la .rpm and filesystems.

    I agree 100% that even if you could use the same mechanism to create tar-
    anf rpm-filesystems (and obviously you can), they shouldn't be automatic
    in the same sense. That's a strong case for autofs or special user tools
    for mounting.

    But as a HFS user I'd be disappointed if a part of the filesystem didn't
    just automatically do the right thing.

    > As for the GNOME looking nice...

    [ Ducks. Let's not get _that_ war going at the same time. No two-front
    attacks, please ]


    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:58    [W:0.020 / U:6.516 seconds]
    ©2003-2016 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site