I know very little of filesystems, but I know that NTFS is extensible
(and supports several file strains). So probably that is not a limitation of NTFS,
but of the NT implementation of it.
E.g. Mac stuff is stored in an extra strain, extra attributes can be stored in
the MFS etc etc.
Such editors are broken. What if the file is a symlink ? IMHO
open() write() write() write() ftruncate() close() is the only way.
If that is the only way, then emacs is of course broken. (And I
disagree - I use emacs every day...)
Now there's an argument waiting to happen :-)
So if
Such editors are broken. What if the file is a symlink ? IMHO
open() write() write() write() ftruncate() close() is the only way.
If that is the only way, then emacs is of course broken. (And I
disagree - I use emacs every day...)
Now there's an argument waiting to happen :-)
Peter Jeremy writes:
On 2000-May-25 19:03:56 +1000, Brian Somers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course access timestamps are usually useless anyway as most (?!!)
people will back up their system from time to time OOPS ! I
never realised before now - dump *doesn't* update the access time.
That's not justification for putting a creation time into the UFS.
Different filesystems store different information - depending on
what the FS developers saw as important. You could just as easily
point out the deficiencies of NTFS based on it's inability to
support all the metadata in
[.]
I check it in FreeBSD 4.0-R
open do not change atime.
Indeed, but it sets a bunch of flags that can be referred to later by
the driver. This would be a good flag - perhaps limited in the same
way that touching the file is (owner only).
[.]
--
@BABOLO http://links.ru/
[.]
Adding a creation timestamp would add 4 or 8 bytes of metadata
to each file, as well as requiring additional code (and CPU time)
to manage it. A 6th Edition inode was 32 bytes (and only stored
access and modify times). A FreeBSD inode is already 4 times as
big. It's necessary to
On May 24, 6:58pm, Arun Sharma wrote:
} Subject: Re: file creation times ?
} On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 11:03:38AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
} To put it another way, why _should_ FreeBSD store a file creation time?
}
} 0. I'm tired of seeing people putting "Created: mm/dd/yy" in their
Don Lewis wrote:
On May 24, 6:58pm, Arun Sharma wrote:
} Subject: Re: file creation times ?
} On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 11:03:38AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
} To put it another way, why _should_ FreeBSD store a file creation time?
}
} 0. I'm tired of seeing people putting "Create
he average computer user would expect it. I didn't know that UNIX didn't
keep track of file creation times 5-6 years after I started using it.
Well, you just proved how useless a feature it tends to be.
The problem with "file creation time" is that its potentially misleading. Thats
on
even valid. See below.
If FFS does it not, it does nto mean it's invalid.
2. The average computer user would expect it. I didn't know that UNIX didn't
keep track of file creation times 5-6 years after I started using it.
Well, you just proved how useless a feature it tends to be.
On May 24, 6:58pm, Arun Sharma wrote:
} Subject: Re: file creation times ?
} On Thu, May 25, 2000 at 11:03:38AM +1000, Peter Jeremy wrote:
} To put it another way, why _should_ FreeBSD store a file creation time?
}
} 0. I'm tired of seeing people putting "Created: mm/
Such editors are broken. What if the file is a symlink ? IMHO
open() write() write() write() ftruncate() close() is the only way.
If that is the only way, then emacs is of course broken. (And I
disagree - I use emacs every day...)
Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
On 2000-May-25 19:03:56 +1000, Brian Somers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Of course access timestamps are usually useless anyway as most (?!!)
people will back up their system from time to time OOPS ! I
never realised before now - dump *doesn't* update the access time.
This is because dump
On Thu, 18 May 2000 10:35:11 -0700, Arun Sharma [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 09:04:52PM +0400, Aleksandr A.Babaylov wrote:
Arun Sharma writes:
Is there any reason why FreeBSD doesn't store file creation times on
the disk (apart from historical reasons) ?
To put
ified time.
2. An average computer user would expect it. I didn't know that UNIX didn't
keep track of file creation times 5-6 years after I started using it.
That's all Unix has ever offered (both the original ATT FS and
FFS/UFS). If you really need a file creation time, you'll need a
zone) where the NTFS file was last modified/accessed.
2. An average computer user would expect it. I didn't know that UNIX didn't
keep track of file creation times 5-6 years after I started using it.
If it took you 5-6 years to notice that the creation time _wasn't_
stored, the creation
Is there any reason why FreeBSD doesn't store file creation times on
the disk (apart from historical reasons) ?
-Arun
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Arun Sharma writes:
Is there any reason why FreeBSD doesn't store file creation times on
the disk (apart from historical reasons) ?
in adddition to atime, ctime and mtime?
--
@BABOLO http://links.ru/
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-ha
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 09:04:52PM +0400, Aleksandr A.Babaylov wrote:
Arun Sharma writes:
Is there any reason why FreeBSD doesn't store file creation times on
the disk (apart from historical reasons) ?
in adddition to atime, ctime and mtime?
struct timespec st_atimespec; /* time of last
20 matches
Mail list logo
