[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:0.177 / U:13.076 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site