From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262200AbUK3RKJ (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:10:09 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262204AbUK3RJ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:09:27 -0500 Received: from psych.st-and.ac.uk ([138.251.11.1]:42933 "EHLO psych.st-andrews.ac.uk") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262217AbUK3RGr (ORCPT ); Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:06:47 -0500 Subject: Re: file as a directory From: Peter Foldiak To: Horst von Brand Cc: Christian Mayrhuber , reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Hans Reiser , Paolo Ciarrocchi , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <200411301631.iAUGVT8h007823@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> References: <200411301631.iAUGVT8h007823@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> Content-Type: text/plain Message-Id: <1101834194.17826.194.camel@pear.st-and.ac.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.2.3 Date: 30 Nov 2004 17:03:14 +0000 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 16:31, Horst von Brand wrote: > > But namespace unification is important, > > Why? Directories are directories, files are files, file contents is file > contents. Mixing them up is a bad idea. I disagree, I think it is a good idea. Why is namespace unification important? Because you can use the same tools on everything. Previously, each tool could handle one namespace. A very simple example would be: I want to count the words in the Appendix of my book. If I can't select the appendix, my "wc" tool is useless (or very difficult to use). On the other hand if I can say wc ~/book/Appendix it's fine. Hans Reiser would say that "namespaces are the roads and waterways of the operating system" and "the value of an operating system is proportional to the number of connections you can make". I think he is right in that. And the authors of Unix knew it too, when they used the same namespace for devices and files. They didn't say "files are files and devices are devices". They said the difference should not matter to the applications. But there is still namespace fragmentation even in Unix, and this is just one of them. > Sure, you could build a filesystem > of sorts (perhaps more in the vein of persistent programming, or even data > base systems) where there simply is no distinction (because there are no > differences to show), but that is something different. > > > and to unify the namespace, you > > have to use the same syntax. I guess you disagree with me on that. (If > > not, how would you do it?) > > I'd go one level up: Eliminate the distinctions that bother you, not try to > patch over them. But that is my point too. Peter