On Sun, 13 Aug 2000, James Sutherland wrote:
> > Dealing with aliases hell on VFAT was enough.
>
> Eh? This looks like a complete non-sequitur from where I'm sitting. NTFS
> isn't VFAT, and there are no aliases involved.
>
> > Yes, NTFS will miss some of the "wonders" (objects are different,
> > after all), but even the rest is more than enough.
>
> What "wonders", and how would NTFS "miss" them?
There are two sorts of crap in handling namespace on VFAT.
* you are getting short names. They behave partially as hardlinks,
partially as hell knows what. They can disappear upon rename (two
different objects become the same). Name that used to be absent may become
present just because you've created a file with totally unrelated name.
You can have several aliases for the same directory. That's the hell NTFS
may miss.
* these damned short names have a nasty habit of travelling when
you do operations on different names. And that's the thing you will
reproduce with that approach on NTFS.
BTW, "same inode" thing is obviously wrong, but who says that we
must go for that?
-
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 - 21:00:31 EST