Re: [9fans] mv vs cp

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

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

[about symlinks]

> and this little piece of
> name space stored as a time bomb somewhere in the network rather than
> in the client's representation of its resources is poor compartment-
> alization and therefore lousy design

This makes me think of something.

Plan 9 puts the mount hierarchy over in the per-process namespace,
which is a nifty idea.

Rob points out here that symlinks also really belong in per-process
places (and the same effect can be more cleanly realized with
"bind").  So clearly, there is no need for symlinks in Plan 9.

(One thing; please clear up my ignorance: sometimes a symlink is used
for the benefit of all the users; where in a Plan 9 system do I put a
"bind" such that it is the automatic default for all users in that
way?)

It seems to me that the same could be true of directory renames, if
the entire naming hierarchy were regarded as a per-process namespace,
rather than just the "mount" portions.  Then a given user could move,
mount, unlink, etc, without changing anything on the fileserver at all
(except a ref count).  [Actually, let it become more liberal and a ref
count is probably not sufficient any more.]