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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:26 EST