> If you look at what a hard link is, you'll realize why they are not in Plan 9.
nominated for informative post the month.
- erik
> If they're unsupported, why? Were they simply overlooked? Are there
> compelling technical or theoretical reasons for not providing them?
i think the record is quite clear that ken, rob, presotto, et. al. were
well-aware of these things. ron has made excellent points about why
these features
ron minnich writes:
> If you look at what a hard link is, you'll realize why they are not in
> Plan 9.
It's not that obvious to me. A hard link is another name for a file,
uniquely identified by . The effect of a hard link can
be simulated with bind, but requires managing a list of excetions (
> It's not that obvious to me. A hard link is another name for a file,
> uniquely identified by .
how do you specify the device? you can't without giving up
on per-process-group namespaces. i don't think there's any
way to uniquely identify a device except through a namespace,
and there's no
rminn...@gmail.com:
> the tangled
> thicket of overlapping, but incompatible, feature sets that are
> almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what Unix was supposed to be:
> that's Linux today.
One for the fortunes file.
Linux has slowly become Windows-lite
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> rminn...@gmail.com:
>
>> the tangled
>> thicket of overlapping, but incompatible, feature sets that are
>> almost, but not quite, entirely unlike what Unix was supposed to be:
>> tha
On Sat, 16 Apr 2011 17:33:39 - smi...@zenzebra.mv.com wrote:
> ron minnich writes:
>
> > If you look at what a hard link is, you'll realize why they are not in
> > Plan 9.
>
> It's not that obvious to me. A hard link is another name for a file,
> uniquely identified by . The effect of a h
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 11:17 AM, Skip Tavakkolian
wrote:
> Linux has slowly become Windows-lite
Except for the lite part.
-rob
