From owner-freebsd-hackers  Fri Jul 28 19:28:40 1995
Return-Path: hackers-owner
Received: (from majordom@localhost)
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id TAA18886
          for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 19:28:40 -0700
Received: from time.cdrom.com (time.cdrom.com [192.216.222.226])
          by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with ESMTP id TAA18878
          for <hackers@freebsd.org>; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 19:28:37 -0700
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by time.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) with SMTP id TAA00939; Fri, 28 Jul 1995 19:27:34 -0700
To: peter@taronga.com
cc: hackers@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: What's in a name 
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 28 Jul 1995 20:28:16 CDT."
             <199507290128.UAA13450@bonkers.taronga.com> 
Date: Fri, 28 Jul 1995 19:27:34 -0700
Message-ID: <936.806984854@time.cdrom.com>
From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com>
Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org
Precedence: bulk

> It's good to have a single namespace for all objects visible to the system.
> 
> This means that one way or another everything has to map into the filesystem,
> since most objects on the system are files.

I don't agree.  Oh, sure, I agree that most most objects are files,
certainly, but they're only one kind of object and I object to forcing
everything into one naming model just because they're popular objects.
There are a number of "global objects" hanging around your modern UN*X
system that really don't want to be files and need to be substantially
twisted into weird shapes in order to get them to fit.

Give me classes, objects and a registry mechanism (for which a
hierarchical organization method would be only *one* of possibly many
available) any day..

And no, I never said I wanted NT.  Stop putting dirty words in my
mouth.. :-)

					Jordan