From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" Message-ID: <87het8uxcl.fsf@becket.becket.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii References: <20011009174328.56C2E199BF@mail.cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] correcting old failures, and NJ vs MA Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:56:25 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 03d86f96-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 I don't have much to respond to anothy's discussion of rpg's article which I alluded too, except to say that rpg himself has changed his mind over and over about exactly what's going on, so I don't think he's an idiot. :) But one thing caught my eye particularly anothy@cosym.net writes: > as a fundamental design principle (for new things - this is obviously > different if you're porting, rewriting, or emulating something) causes one > to ignore these tradeoffs in favor of whatever pre-concieved notions one > has about how something should work. this leads to systems or apps that > sacrifice one or more of the other three design goals - most often > simplicity - in favor of some ill-concieved notion of "correctness", which > quite likely a different notion of "correctness" than others have. By correctness I meant that plan 9 *does* have a way to move directory trees, of course, it's just slow and tedious and fails more often than the other way. That's an important point that I think got lost. For example, someone asks "what about find? won't it miss stuff if you move a directory?" And the answer is "yes, it will--and it will miss stuff whether you move things with a quick syscall or with a long tedious file-by-file copy-and-delete." That's why I alluded to rpg: he suggests that the NJ way prefers simplicity of *kernel* and kernel interfaces, even if it makes the total way to get something done more complex. People have noted (quite rightly) that the kernel code for moving directories is tricky and easy to get wrong and complex. But what they haven't noted is that the user-space solution is even more tricky (if you expect it to solve the same problems), and even easier to get wrong, and even more complex. Thomas