[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: No to StowFS!
From: |
olafBuddenhagen |
Subject: |
Re: No to StowFS! |
Date: |
Wed, 8 Feb 2006 08:07:11 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.5.11 |
Hi,
> StowFS doesn't create links, it uses unionfs. The difference of both
> is almost simple, since with links you can remove stow and everything
> will keep working. With StowFS you need to have stowfs running to get
> things working (this "curiously" create a bootstrap problem
You are basically claiming that having redundancy is better than
creating an alternate view on the fly.
Every database specialist, every capable programmer; in fact anyone
doing serious stuff with computers, will tell you that this is
absolutely wrong.
-antrik-
- Re: No to StowFS!, (continued)
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/03
- Re: No to StowFS!, Michael Heath, 2006/02/04
- Re: No to StowFS!, Richard M. Stallman, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Filip Brcic, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Leonardo Pereira, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Alfred M\. Szmidt, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!, Gianluca Guida, 2006/02/05
- Re: No to StowFS!,
olafBuddenhagen <=
- Re: No to StowFS!, olafBuddenhagen, 2006/02/09
- Re: No to StowFS!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/02/09
Re: No to StowFS!, Thomas Bushnell BSG, 2006/02/09
Message not available