Horst von Brand wrote:
Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:No, it forbids hard links to the directory aspect of the file-directory duality.
Christer Weinigel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
[...]
Could you please try summarize a few of the arguments that you find
especially compelling? This thread has gotten very confused since
there are a bunch of different subjects all being intermixed here.
Indeed. We are discussion changes to the heart of Linux. It is bound
to get a little heated :/
True. But without any specific applications, just "this would be nice to have", the discussion can't go forward.
What are we discussing?
1. Do we want support for named streams?No :)
I belive the answer is yes, since both NTFS and HFS (that's the
MacOS filesystem, isn't it?) supports streams we want Linux to
support this if possible.
Anyone disagreeing?
There are many people around here who disagree (that is precisely the heart of the discussion). I for one don't think Linux has to get $RANDOM_FEATURE just because $SOME_OTHER_OS has got it. Either the feature stands on its own _in the context of POSIX/Unix/Linux_ (possibly as an extension or modification of said standards) or it isn't worth it.
2. How do we want to expose named streams?
One suggestion is file-as-directory in some form.
Which is broken, as it forbids hard links to files.
No, the reiser4 design supports only files and directories, but makes them able to do what people use streams for.
Now you have 3 principal types of objects: Directories, containers (files with streams), and files (no streams).
The reiser4 design is based on a hatred of streams, and a desire to show that adding more features to files and directories makes streams unnecessary.
Hans
