*BSD News Article 64677


Return to BSD News archive

Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!nntp.coast.net!news00.sunet.se!sunic!news99.sunet.se!news.funet.fi!news.abo.fi!not-for-mail
From: mandtbac@news.abo.fi (Mats Andtbacka)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: Ideal filesystem
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Date: 27 Mar 1996 20:01:09 GMT
Organization: Unorganized Usenet Postings UnInc.
Lines: 31
Distribution: comp
Message-ID: <4jc6q5$bgd@josie.abo.fi>
References: <4hptj4$cf4@cville-srv.wam.umd.edu> <3140C968.20699696@netcom.com> <4ilgto$861@floyd.sw.oz.au> <4j6if4$15gk@news.missouri.edu> <315834CD.7C4DA6C7@netcom.com>
Reply-To: mandtbac@abo.fi
NNTP-Posting-Host: aton.abo.fi
X-Newsreader: TIN [UNIX 1.3 950520BETA PL0]
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:20341 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:16340

Adam Megacz, in <315834CD.7C4DA6C7@netcom.com>:
>The reason I bring this all up is because you really can't go
>"inbetween" #2 and #3; you have to go one way or the other. I myself
>am unsure of which method I support; each has advantages (#2 is more
>in harmony with "The UNIX way",

i disagree. your second alternative (clear distinction between EA's
and files) adds definite confusion to the existing concept (where a
file is _only_ a byte stream, and _all_ structure is in the
filesystem), whereas your third alternative - no distinction between a
file/ea and a directory - is "cleaner", looks less like something with
something else bolted on the side, and since it bears some fleeting
resemblance to the existing files-are-data-directories-give-structure
paradigm, could be said to be closer to "the Unix way".

if you're going to do this, go all the way and go with #3. if a file
is no longer a simple byte stream, then there is no reason why it
should have only one set of permissions (or ownerships!), nor any
reason why its subparts (EAs) shouldn't be able to have subparts of
their own. anything less would be introducing arbitrary and silly
limitations that are bound to break sooner or later. the more general
solution - like somebody posted a userfs example of - is better, in my
eyes anyway.

for the record, i'm happy enough with the existing idea that i likely
wouldn't change in any hurry (even though i can see some reasons why
i'd want to - adding a content-type to text files is a Good Thing for
us in ISOLatin-1-land!), but if i'll ever use any system like this it
won't be any half-assed, half-useless compromise. all or nothing.
-- 
   "I'm more differed from than differing"   --  Arthur Dent