Anton Altaparmakov wrote:
But does NTFS specificism/cripplism belong in VFS? (I in no way blame
you for NTFS's design:-) )
I was just stating a fact of how they are stored on NTFS, again something
I have no power to change.
I am not saying that the features of EAs are not useful, I am saying
that I want to choose them
Well, gosh, okay, maybe you want to prepend ',,' to streams and '..' to
extended attributes. I personally think Linux would only want to do so
when used as a fileserver emulating NTFS/SAMBA. There is no enhancement
of user functionality from doing it for general purpose filesystems.
Just wait until this functionality is available and watch all GUI things
start to use it en masse! I don't doubt that GNOME/KDE/replace with your
favourite window manager are going to hesitate to start putting in the
icon, the name, and whatnot inside EAs or inside named streams the instant
they are ubiquitously available and I think that makes a lot of sense too.
No doubt I will get flamed for saying this but all flames go to
Both MacOS and as of recently Windows do this kind of stuff, too, and it
can't be long before Linux goes the same way, provided file systems
support the required features (i.e. EAs and/or named streams) so I
disagree with you this is only a compatibility thing. It might start out
as one but it will find real world applications very quickly...
individually for particular files.
It could be so much better to have EDIBLE_PIZZA (example from previous
instead of just PIZZA, sigh.
Programs will get written to use your API, and not work with reiserfs,
and will get written to use our API and not work with NTFS, and this is
Now that is true. And yes, it is bad. However it will be up to the
community to decide which API to use and at the moment there are several
fs using the "bestbits" API and only reiserfs (?) the "reiserfs" one...
And we all know from our very own $Deity that we don't design software, we
just write things and let evolution decide which is better. (((-;
Fortunately he isn't entirely consistent on this point.:-)
I predict you guys will ship first and get a lot of usage, and then we
will ship later with more features,
and the result will be a mess for users. This is the usual evolutionary
design standards mess.
Objectively, I understand it is highly reasonable for the Linux
community to assume that what we
implement will be horrible until we finish it. I would encourage it to
assume that someone else
will eventually get orthogonalism right though, and I think it would be
worth waiting for it, because
these are the sorts of design features that stick around for 30 years.
I don't really expect that most
folks will choose to wait though.
Best to all,