From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue May 22 22: 3: 8 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from saturn.cs.uml.edu (saturn.cs.uml.edu [129.63.8.2]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 821EB37B424 for ; Tue, 22 May 2001 22:03:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from acahalan@saturn.cs.uml.edu) Received: (from acahalan@localhost) by saturn.cs.uml.edu (8.11.0/8.11.2) id f4N52oE210244; Wed, 23 May 2001 01:02:50 -0400 (EDT) Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 01:02:50 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <200105230502.f4N52oE210244@saturn.cs.uml.edu> From: "Albert D. Cahalan" To: tlambert2@mindspring.com Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, nadav@cs.Technion.AC.IL, jandrese@mitre.org Subject: Re: technical comparison 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 Terry Lambert writes: > I don't understand the inability to perform the trivial > design engineering necessary to keep from needing to put > 60,000 files in one directory. > > However, we can take it as a given that people who need > to do this are incapable of doing computer science. One could say the same about the design engineering necessary to handle 60,000 files in one directory. You're making excuses. People _want_ to do this, and it often performs better on a modern filesystem. This is not about need; it's about keeping ugly hacks out of the app code. http://www.namesys.com/5_1.html > (the rationale behind this last is that people who can't > design around needing 60,000 files in a single directory > are probably going to to be unable to correctly remember > the names of the files they created, since if they could, > then they could remember things like ./a/a/aardvark or > ./a/b/abominable). Eeew. "./a/b/abominable" is a disgusting old hack used to work around traditional filesystem deficiencies. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message