On Thu, Feb 4, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Nathan Eisenberg <nat...@atlasnetworks.us>wrote:
> > Users expect a / directory in a filesystem. Tahoe isn't a filesystem, but > it does things a filesystem does (store and > > retrieve files). They expect to interact with it like a filesystem > because they see it as a filesystem. > > That would seem to conflict with the expectation set by the name 'Least > Authority File System'. > > Understand, I'm not being catty at all - I'm just saying that if this > expectation conflict is confusing to me (and I've spent weeks reading wikis > and mailing list history and experimenting with test grids), it will > probably be confusing for others as well. > > Best Regards, > Nathan Eisenberg > Nathan, I'm beginning to see the problem. Basically it boils down to this: The "average user" will attempt to interact with Tahoe-LAFS in a way that violates the design parameters of Tahoe-LAFS. The only way to "fix" this "bug" will be to break the "LAFS" part of Tahoe-LAFS. Perhaps a "independent subsidiary" project would break LAFS by creating a metaphor allowing users to interact with Tahoe as a filesystem. I do not have the understanding to undertake such a project, and I shudder at the prospects of gaining that understanding.... I remember being surprised when I first realized that a child directory did not have a '.' link back to it's parent. That was when I began to realize that Tahoe-LAFS is not a filesystem. There was a "hey, this is a bug moment," followed by an, "oh, yeah," moment. I can't wait around for Octavia to materialize, and I don't want my Tahoe grid to fracture by defection. I'm stuck between two worlds....
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@allmydata.org http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
