If you look at what a hard link is, you'll realize why they are not in Plan 9.
nominated for informative post the month.
- erik
If they're unsupported, why? Were they simply overlooked? Are there
compelling technical or theoretical reasons for not providing them?
i think the record is quite clear that ken, rob, presotto, et. al. were
well-aware of these things. ron has made excellent points about why
these features
ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com writes:
If you look at what a hard link is, you'll realize why they are not in
Plan 9.
It's not that obvious to me. A hard link is another name for a file,
uniquely identified by type,device,qid. The effect of a hard link can
be simulated with bind, but
It's not that obvious to me. A hard link is another name for a file,
uniquely identified by type,device,qid.
how do you specify the device? you can't without giving up
on per-process-group namespaces. i don't think there's any
way to uniquely identify a device except through a namespace,
rminn...@gmail.com:
the tangled
thicket of overlapping, but incompatible, feature sets that are
almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what Unix was supposed to be:
that's Linux today.
One for the fortunes file.
Linux has slowly become Windows-lite
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Richard Miller 9f...@hamnavoe.com wrote:
rminn...@gmail.com:
the tangled
thicket of overlapping, but incompatible, feature sets that are
almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what Unix was supposed to be:
that's Linux
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:33:39 - smi...@zenzebra.mv.com wrote:
ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com writes:
If you look at what a hard link is, you'll realize why they are not in
Plan 9.
It's not that obvious to me. A hard link is another name for a file,
uniquely identified by
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Skip Tavakkolian
skip.tavakkol...@gmail.com wrote:
Linux has slowly become Windows-lite
Except for the lite part.
-rob
