Subject: Re: SGI XFS filesystem
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Christos Zoulas <email@example.com>
Date: 05/28/1999 21:08:54
In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> email@example.com (Chris G. Demetriou) writes:
>If you're going in this direction, i think i believe:
> local (with ufs under here, along with the rest of the disk fses)
>remote and local are actually probably better put as "disk" and "network".
There are some implications of changing the layout:
- many user programs will need to be modified to include the
- kernel sources will have to be moved
I personally like something like fs/ufs, fs/nfs, fs/ntfs... I don't
think that classify them further serves any useful purpose except
adding bytes to source files.
While we are at it, why don't we do the same for net?
Then we can break *all* userland programs that use the network.
But that is easily repairable by ln -s net/inet netinet in /usr/include
And finally, we can go the solaris direction and move all the fs related
commands into separate directories and leave only the central command