Re: what's next for the linux kernel?

[Tim Bird <tim.bird@am.sony.com>]

Nikita Danilov wrote:
> Marc Perkel writes:
> 
> [...]
> 
>  > Right - that's Unix "inside the box" thinking. The idea is to make the 
>  > operating system smarter so that the user doesn't have to deal with 
>  > what's computer friendly - but reather what makes sense to the user. 
>  >  From a user's perspective if you have not rights to access a file then 
>  > why should you be allowed to delete it?
> 
> Because in Unix a name is not an attribute of a file.
> 
> Files are objects that you read, write and truncate. They are
> represented by inodes.
> 
> Separately from that, there is an indexing structure: directory
> tree. Directories map symbolical names to inodes. Obviously, adding a
> reference to an index, or removing it from one requires access
> permission to the _index_ rather then to the object being referenced.
> 
> That two-level model of files and indexing on top of them is essential
> to Unix due to the flexibility and conceptual economy it provides.
>

We should print that on post-it notes for grandmothers
to read when they are interacting with Unix file systems.

>  > 
>  > So - the thread is about the future so I say - time to fix Unix.
> 
> One thing is clear: it's too late to fix Netware. Why should Unix
> emulate its lethal defects?

Like NetWare's defect of it being intuitive and easy to
administer file system rights?  Hey, here's a thought.  Maybe
the operating system could actually exist to SERVE the human
instead of vice versa.
  -- Tim

=============================
Tim Bird
Architecture Group Chair, CE Linux Forum
Senior Staff Engineer, Sony Electronics
=============================