> I've been using 'decent' in much the same way 'standard' or 'disk' is being > used; I'd actually prefer nemo's idea of a QTDECENT qidtype to marking the > file server. The original QTDECENT proposal (actually originally inverted > logic, in the form of QTCTL) said this about indecent files: "this file does > not behave like a regular file, do not cache and handle with care".
unfortunately, unless you are talking about archival storage (e.g., /n/dump), i think the difference between a "decent" file and a ctl file starts to seem slippery. unless a file is exclusive open it's hard to be sure that a file won't change underneath you. - erik
