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 12:14:04 EST."
             <opryfl5qnarveh1e@smtp.borf.com>
From: "Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <95136.1068486181.1@t40.swtch.com>
Message-Id: <E1AJG4G-000OkU-1v@t40.swtch.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:43:01 -0500
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 857828d2-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> Since I learned from UNIX, there is a very real chance that
> I would structure it that way.  It's what I grew up with.
>
> Why was putting the name in the metat good in 1987 but bad
> in 1969?

I don't think it was bad in 1969.  I think it just didn't
happen that way.  Look at the way that links were
used before there were hierarchical path names
(see http://plan9.bell-labs.com/~dmr/hist.html, search for "ln dd").
Once you have hierarchical path names so it's easy to name
files that are more than two hops from the current directory,
I think the need for links goes away.  They're a holdover from
an earlier time.

In short, modern file names make links unnecessary.

Entirely speculation.
Russ