Subject: Re: POSIX & symlink ownership
To: Simon J. Gerraty <email@example.com>
From: Bakul Shah <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 08/03/1995 16:59:42
> Since the concept was (according to McKusick) introduced so that local
> filesystems would behave the same as files systems mounted from lame
> (my word not his) systems like NT? I'd vote for introduction of
> either lpfs (lame posix filesystem) as a new filesystem to use the new
> semantics, or lpsl (lame posix symlinks) as a mount option. I don't
> know about everyone else, but I'm far more likely to NFS mount from a
> UNIX system that uses the old semantics...
It is ironic that inventors of Unix pushed everything-is-a-
file paradigm to its logical limits in Plan 9 while LOSIX
seems to be going in the opposite direction. Anyone remember
>> The I node is the focus of all local file activity in UNIX.<<
Not anymore, I guess.
(Potentially) taking away the inode of a symlink is what has
introduced these problems with symlink. This is such an
obviously bad idea that first time I heard it I thought it
was a joke.
PS: I liked der Mouse's suggestion of adding syscalls to
deal with symlinks in their own right.