Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives

Hans Reiser
2004-09-03T05:22:14Z

Linus Torvalds wrote:

>On Thu, 2 Sep 2004, David Masover wrote:
>
>
>>reiser4 kernel will contain knowledge of fs type contained in a file.
>>
>>
Whoa! No it won't. It will allow you to create a metafile named type
if you choose. Or maybe a metadirectory named types, I don't really
care much about this stuff yet, we need to do other things to the
semantics more urgently than this, Typing requires a lot of cooperation
from user space apps. I don't really expect to have that much social
pull on the issue, but if someone chooses to design their app to use a
types metadirectory, I don't mind accomodating on it. I apologize if
from my saying that I gave the impression that I think files should be
strongly typed.

I am quite well aware of the disadvantages of OS/400 hindering usability
with type information, as well the advantages of having types available
for those that want to look at them.....

>
>That's a disaster, btw.
>
>
In every implementation so far it has been a net disaster, because OS
designers who type things have been willing to make users pay attention
to type when they don't want to. Sometimes trying to make too much out
of something makes it a mistake when being a bit more laid back would
make it ok. Me, I am so laid back, I prefer to work on other features
for a few years first.....;-)

>There is no one "fs type" of a file. Files have at _least_ one type
>(bytestream), but most have more. Which is why automatically doing the
>right thing (in the sense you seem to want) in kernel space is simply not
>possible.
>
> Linus
>
>
>
>