Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> We already have several directories in our system that are unspeakably
> unwieldy for a human to browse, why should /usr/share/images be any
> different?
We have a few hundred in some directories; I'm not sure we have
several thousand in any yet.
There's a point where large directories become a problem for the
system, not just for a human. For example, many years back, when
Netcom still offered shell accounts, they ended up moving the mail
spools into people's home directories because the search times on
/var/spool/mail for $USER had become a major performance bottleneck.
And that was just one file per shell-account; probably no more than a
couple of thousand altogether.
Now, granted, that was SunOS, not Linux, but still....
Perhaps, as an experiment, someone could put several thousand images
in single directory and see how the system reacts. I'd feel more
comfortable with some emperical evidence that this won't be a problem
before formally accepting the idea.
That said, I *do* prefer the name "images" for the dir, and fully
support Branden on that (I was actually going to propose that myself,
since all my personal graphics are already in ~/pub/images").
cheers
--
Chris Waters [EMAIL PROTECTED] | I have a truly elegant proof of the
or [EMAIL PROTECTED] | above, but it is too long to fit into
http://www.dsp.net/xtifr | this .signature file.
