Re: [9fans] Plan 9

["Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>]

rob@plan9.bell-labs.com (rob pike) writes:

> > I'm not suggesting a change in Plan 9; I'm thinking about file system
> > name spaces in general, and thinking that the per-process variability
> > of Plan 9 is great, but I think it could be taken even further; in
> > that way unifying all the different kinds of links there are.
>
> To what effect?  You've yet to ponit out a problem or limitation
> introduced by the way Plan 9 does this.  It's one thing to say
> things could be different; it's quite another to make a convincing
> argument why it's worthwhile.

I'm not suggesting a change in Plan 9.  Let me repeat, because you and
someone else both seem to have missed that.  I'm not suggesting a
change in Plan 9.

Now, to what point?  The goal is unification.  There shouldn't be
sixteen different ways to accomplish the same effect, and users
shouldn't have to see sixteen ways.

Right now, if I want a given file to appear *here* in my visible
filespace, there are two ways: I can bind it, I can move/copy it.

And, if I want a very different visible filespace from other users, I
get that by doing a very large number of binds, but that has bad
performance costs because it was assumed that users wouldn't have a
huge number of them.