[lkml]   [2000]   [Aug]   [20]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: abstract file (support multi-part)

Today, James Sutherland <> wrote:

> That all depends on your viewpoint. If you fix the two major flaws in
> NTFS's approach, what you are actually left with are just files. Files
> which have part of their name in common with other files, yes - but does
> that really matter to anyone?

What you are left with is a file made up of more than one part. Not
multiple files. And not fixing the "two major flaws in NTFS's approach" -
it's certainly the first I've heard of them, and something that must be
shared by any other existing implementation of the same thing, considering
what they have in common.

> Not really. These are NOT parts of a single file: they are independent
> blocks of data with names, living in a directory.

No. They ARE parts of a single file. If they were independent blocks of
data with names living in a directory, then they WOULD be files,
yes. However, they are not.

I don't want to sound like I'm disputing everything you say for the sake
of it (honestly, this isn't the case) - but there are fundamental
differences between files and named streams/forks, and they must be
treated as such.

Mo McKinlay Chief Software Architect inter/open Labs
GnuPG Key: pub 1024D/76A275F9 2000-07-22 Mo McKinlay <>

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 12:37    [W:0.162 / U:0.768 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site