Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Sun, 20 Aug 2000 09:20:46 +0100 (BST) | From | Mo McKinlay <> | Subject | Re: abstract file (support multi-part) |
| |
Today, James Sutherland <jas88@cam.ac.uk> 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 <mmckinlay@gnu.org>
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |