Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2008 19:13:34 +0100 From: "Ivan Voras" <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Directory rename semantics. Message-ID: <9bbcef730811071013q35c04dd4gb582a286a709f22d@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <20081107163910.GA7007@zim.MIT.EDU> References: <20081027193545.GA95872@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl> <20081028161855.GA45129@zim.MIT.EDU> <20081106192829.GA98742@pin.if.uz.zgora.pl> <20081106195558.GG2281@submonkey.net> <gf168k$48o$1@ger.gmane.org> <20081107163910.GA7007@zim.MIT.EDU>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
2008/11/7 David Schultz <das@freebsd.org>: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008, Ivan Voras wrote: >> That would be desirable if we want file system semantics to be a >> property of the OS instead of individual file systems. (Though I don't >> know if there's ever been a conscious decision about this particular >> goal). > > I don't agree with this. The access control rules are > fundamentally a property of the filesystem. Nobody expects msdosfs > or ntfs to have the same semantics as UFS, for instance. > Furthermore, even if you hacked up all the local filesystems to > support the "FreeBSD rules" (as a recent commit seems to have > done), you'd still get different semantics for remote NFS and AFS > mounts. There's a fundamental difference between the three groups of file systems: UFS and ZFS are native local file systems created for Unix, MSDOSfs is definitely an odd, foreign file system, while NFS and AFS are network file systems nobody trusts anyway :)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9bbcef730811071013q35c04dd4gb582a286a709f22d>