From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] FS question
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:01:25 EST."
             <opryfc8nqcrveh1e@smtp.borf.com>
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <94111.1068476866.1@t40.swtch.com>
Message-Id: <E1AJDe3-000OTx-KE@t40.swtch.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:07:47 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 84d78c24-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> I was just curious to the reasoning behind dropping links.
> Did, for example, Ken's FS not do links because Plan 9 had
> bind or did Plan 9 use bind because, possibly among other reasons,
> FS didn't do any links.  Or was it just an accident of
> design, a side affect of putting the file name in the meta data?

I have no idea (I wasn't there), but I have a question for you.

If you were designing a file system today, from scratch,
and you weren't worried about backwards compatibility,
would you actually structure it the same way as the UNIX
file system, with inodes and links?  What a mess.