Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives

David Masover
2004-09-03T23:45:51Z

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Paul Jakma wrote:
| On Fri, 3 Sep 2004, Spam wrote:
|
|> Indeed. I hope I didn't say otherwise :).
|
|
| Sure.
|
|> Just that I think it will
|> be very difficult to have this transparency in all apps. Just
|> thinking of "nano file.jpg/description.txt" or "ls
|> file.tar/untar/*.doc". Sure in some environments like Gnome it could
|> work, but it still doesn't for the rest of the flora of Linux
|> programs.
|
|
| "will it be transparent for all apps?", whether that's worth doing
| depends on the technical implications. Thankfully we have Al and Linus
| to make the judgement call on that ;)

So far, the technical implications are mainly "does it create a serious
issue in the distant future" or "does some exotic new feature that
doesn't exist yet cause problems" and not "it's currently broken".

Right now, I can edit a file's permissions, transparently, from any app,
and I haven't noticed any stability issues at all.

| Personally, I think that if GNOME can provide transparency for GNOME
| users, I think that's probably enough - unless there are literally no
| issues in adding some kind of VFS support.

Only it can't. Especially if it's a typical GNOME user, who gets used
to having their files encrypted in foo.tar.pgp, say. Works in abiword,
works in gedit, breaks in OpenOffice. Not good.

| The nano / ls /tar user is likely a very different user to the GNOME
| user. That user is also likely to appreciate the problems with backups
| and such more.

I'm a vim/ls/tar user. And I believe the problems with backups to be
very minor. There are other issues that I don't understand as
thoroughly, so I'll leave them to Al and Linus.

| Anyway, userspace transparency is sufficient for most classes of users.
| Only reason to provide some kernel support is if it makes sense ("but
| not all apps can use GNOME transparency" not being one of those reasons).

Can you justify why "not all apps can use GNOME transparency" is not a
valid reason? Would you still think so if GNOME transparency was the
only way to read isofs?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
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=ggxZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----