From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Sep 4 7:13: 6 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mail.twwells.com (mail.twwells.com [64.38.247.128]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8D9E37B403 for ; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 07:13:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: from xfermail (helo=mail.twwells.com) by mail.twwells.com with local-bsmtp (Exim 3.32 #1) id 15eGwn-000GAf-00 for freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org; Tue, 04 Sep 2001 07:13:01 -0700 X-Filter-Status: mail.twwells.com ok 13 Received: from twwells.com ( [65.14.140.228] ) by mail.twwells.com via tcp with esmtp id 3b94e160-00f2ac; Tue, 4 Sep 2001 14:12:48 +0000 Received: from root by twwells.com with local (Exim 3.22 #1) id 15eGwP-0005gh-00; Tue, 04 Sep 2001 10:12:37 -0400 Subject: Re: Should URL's be pervasive. References: <000003ff0207cf07d1@[192.168.1.4]> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Message-Id: From: Charlie Root Date: Tue, 04 Sep 2001 10:12:37 -0400 Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > What I was trying to say is that there is no reason that I should care > if the file is local or not. You do need to know if the file is local or not. You need to know for security. You need to know because files behave differently on different machines. You need to know because file structures don't map from one machine to another. You need to know because differing protocols allow you do to very different things to files. You need to know because performance varies dramatically depending on where the file is located. > Just as the OS support having multiple storage devices and media and the > software does not need to know if the file is on a SCSI or IDE disk or if > it is on DISK 2 partition 3 or DISK 5 partition 1, why should it know if > it is local or on the machine beside it or on the machine on the other side > of the world? The OS support of multiple device types exists because it is possible and reasonable to abstract each of those device types into a single "virtual" type. When this isn't possible or reasonable, it's not only difficult but *wrong* to abstract. There are way too many things you can do with a local file that you can't do with a remote file to allow this abstraction. > Anyway, the point is that a file that I can access should be a file I > can access via VI or MORE or EMACS or GREP or any other tool without > having those tools each having FTP and HTTP and SSH support built in to > them. The OS should handle it. No it should not. It's not reasonable for the *operating system* to know about every damned protocol that someone decides would be a just peachy way to access a file. Hell, it's not even practical. The idea of universal abstraction just does not work. If you think otherwise, I suggest you start coding and stop bothering the rest of us until you've made it work. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message