[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: symlinks and W32 [was: Easy configuration of a site-lisp directory]

From: Arthur Miller
Subject: Re: symlinks and W32 [was: Easy configuration of a site-lisp directory]
Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 16:15:29 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux)

tomas@tuxteam.de writes:

> On Sat, Aug 21, 2021 at 10:00:25AM +0300, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
>> > Date: Sat, 21 Aug 2021 08:48:29 +0200
>> > From: <tomas@tuxteam.de>
>> > 
>> > That's because DOS got all confused between direntries and inodes,
>> > and Microsoft never recovered from that (despite having hired a pro
>> > to do NT for them, but I disgress ;-P
>> I don't see how inodes are relevant to this,
> Note the tongue-in-cheek. But yes, the truth beneath that buffoon is
> that Microsoft had to bend a properly designed file system to adapt
> to the expectations of a FAT spoiled audience. From there stem lots
> of problems.
>> and NTFS does have their equivalent internally.
> I know. This was the pros I was hinting at, Tom Miller, Dave Cutler
> et al, scooped up when DEC went supernova.
> The thing with the inode/direntry was more a metaphor for "DOS FAT
> is at a too low level of abstraction, and NTFS pays the price for
> that".
> Not that important. Just a hysterical nootfote.


This quite a regression now, but for anyone interested in history.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]