> Spam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Keeping stuff in the kernel should make the new features >> transparent to the applications. > No, it will make just one special case, rename within the same > filesystem, work. (Well, two special cases, rm will also delete > the other forks). > Unless we add a new copy(2) syscall (which would be nice for other > reasons) all applicatons that copy files will fail to copy the > streams. How so? The whole idea is that the underlaying OS that handles the copying should also know to copy everything, otherwise you can implement everything into applications and just skip the whole filesystem part. Of course, it won't work if applications themselves are actually transferring the data and create the new files directly onto the filesystem. This just seem so wrong. ~S > So no working cp command, no nautilus nor konqueror without > changes to the application. And if you have to change the > applications anyway, isn't it much better to agree on a shared library > in userspace that everyone uses? Which has the added bonus that it > can be made to work on top of Linux, Windows, Ultrix and VMS? > /Christer
