Re: what's next for the linux kernel?

[Nikita Danilov <nikita@clusterfs.com>]

Marc Perkel writes:

[...]

 > Right - that's Unix "inside the box" thinking. The idea is to make the 
 > operating system smarter so that the user doesn't have to deal with 
 > what's computer friendly - but reather what makes sense to the user. 
 >  From a user's perspective if you have not rights to access a file then 
 > why should you be allowed to delete it?

Because in Unix a name is not an attribute of a file.

Files are objects that you read, write and truncate. They are
represented by inodes.

Separately from that, there is an indexing structure: directory
tree. Directories map symbolical names to inodes. Obviously, adding a
reference to an index, or removing it from one requires access
permission to the _index_ rather then to the object being referenced.

That two-level model of files and indexing on top of them is essential
to Unix due to the flexibility and conceptual economy it provides.

 > 
 > Now - the idea is to create choice. If you need to emulate Unix nehavior 
 > for compatibility that's fine. But I would migrate away from that into a 
 > permissions paradygme that worked like Netware.

And there are people believing that ITS (or VMS, or <insert your first
passion here>...) set the standard to follow. :-)

[...]

 > 
 > So - the thread is about the future so I say - time to fix Unix.

One thing is clear: it's too late to fix Netware. Why should Unix
emulate its lethal defects?

Nikita.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/