On Sat, 12 Aug 2000, Alexander Viro wrote:
> > I'd much rather have an implied mount happen automatically (if the forks
> > are to be done with a mount-like internal implementation) for the user
> > when he encounters a file with forks. So that people can just write
> > scripts etc, and without the user having to care about the details.
>
> They will want it for tar(1). Immediately. And for rpm. And for all weird
> shit handled by things like mc(1). Mark my word, you will get a _huge_
> recurring flamewar on hands.
That's ok.
There's a very legitimate difference between a filesystem designed for
something (ie HFS or NTFS resource forks are an integral part of the
filesystem) and a cool hack a la .rpm and .tar.gs filesystems.
I agree 100% that even if you could use the same mechanism to create tar-
anf rpm-filesystems (and obviously you can), they shouldn't be automatic
in the same sense. That's a strong case for autofs or special user tools
for mounting.
But as a HFS user I'd be disappointed if a part of the filesystem didn't
just automatically do the right thing.
> As for the GNOME looking nice...
[ Ducks. Let's not get _that_ war going at the same time. No two-front
attacks, please ]
Linus
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Aug 15 2000 - 21:00:29 EST