Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wonder, should undeletion (aka the Windows trash can) better be done at a
> per-filesystem level (like, in diskfs), or with an extra-filesystem that is
> stacked (like shadowfs)?
Undeletion, without exact semantics, is a mistake, wherever it is
imp
Neal's pthreads for Hurd package just made the slashdot front page.
If any of you have time over the day, can you please check in there
and help dispell some of the usual FUD and misinformation that is
usual for slashdot? (Especially around the Hurd!)
Tks,
Jeff Bailey
--
learning from failure
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wonder, should undeletion (aka the Windows trash can) better be done at a
> per-filesystem level (like, in diskfs), or with an extra-filesystem that is
> stacked (like shadowfs)?
I think I'd rather have a versioning filesystem (what emacs emulates
Hi,
I wonder, should undeletion (aka the Windows trash can) better be done at a
per-filesystem level (like, in diskfs), or with an extra-filesystem that is
stacked (like shadowfs)?
The experiments with shadowfs show that it is feasible to do it this way,
but also that it is not easy: shadowfs is
On Sun, Sep 29, 2002 at 09:00:17PM +1000, Glenn McGrath wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Sep 2002 22:04:09 +1200 (NZST)
> Philip Charles <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Would you please let me know how you get on. Next step, a ramdisk.
> >
>
> Yes, i will keep you informed.
>
> I might have been able to
