Date: Thu, 8 May 1997 16:10:06 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
Reply-To: "Mike A. Harris" <mharris AT blackwidow DOT saultc DOT on DOT ca>
To: "Alaric B. Williams" <alaric AT abwillms DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
cc: JP Morris <b52g AT usa DOT net>, opendos AT delorie DOT com
Subject: Re: BIG suggestion for Opendos Features
In-Reply-To: <862937885.11744.0@abwillms.demon.co.uk>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.3.95.970508160912.451H-100000@capslock.com>
Organization: Total disorganization.
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, 6 May 1997, Alaric B. Williams wrote:

> > ><DROOL>
> > >Native ext2 with symlinks, hardlinks, case sensitivity, self
> > >defragmentation, speed, permissions, uid's/gid's, etc...
>  
> > Don't overwhelm the poor users with too much complexity.
> > As for UNIX permissions, either we inhert the unpleasant
> > CHMOD with its 3-levels of security that force the user
> > to think in octal, or we invent some really twisted abbreviations.
> > I thought the trend was to make things friendlier.
> 
> I'd agree with JP here. Do we need this kind of access control?
> 
> > Personally I'd be happy to stick with RASH.
> 
> It's fine for a single user system, IMHO.
>  
> And what about case sensitivity? NEVER! I like the way NT
> does it. Case is preserved for presentation value, but
> I don't have to get the case right to name a file properly!

Well, then you wouldn't enable case sensitivity on the new
filesystem, or else you'd use FAT, or some other filesystem.  I
on the other hand would have the option of full case sensitivity,
and I would use it too.


Mike A. Harris        |             http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris
Computer Consultant   |                  Coming soon: dynamic-IP-freedom...
My dynamic address: http://blackwidow.saultc.on.ca/~mharris/ip-address.html
Email: mharris at blackwidow.saultc.on.ca  <-- Spam proof address