From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] FS question References: <8D1F6AC3-139C-11D8-A204-000A95B984D8@mightycheese.com> Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-15; format=flowed From: Brantley Coile MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <8D1F6AC3-139C-11D8-A204-000A95B984D8@mightycheese.com> User-Agent: Opera7.11/Win32 M2 build 2887 Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 12:09:28 -0500 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 852c0240-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:40:11 -0800, Rob Pike 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? > > links are bizarre, as rsc said. > > i don't really know the answer to your question; i think rsc may > have actually done so. when redesigning, you tend to throw > away the stuff you don't want. > > also, think how links would work in plan 9. it's bad enough on > unix, where you can't link from one file system to another, even > on the same disk. with plan 9's malleable name spaces and files > appearing from all over, links would work even more unpredictably. > > -rob > > Just to be on record, I wasn't even remotely suggesting we put links into Plan 9. I like the way Plan 9 FS does it. I was just trying to gain insight into how the FS got to where it is. Brantley