From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] FS question References: Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed From: Brantley Coile MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:14:04 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 853cfec4-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 10:07:47 -0500, Russ Cox wrote: >> 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. > > 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? Brantley