>
> On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Illuminati Primus wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 16 Dec 1996, Steve VanDevender wrote:
> >
> > > If you think it's that easy and necessary, then do it yourself. You've
> > > got the kernel source, after all. I myself happen to think there's no
> > > good reason to change the behavior of link() in a way that makes it
> > > incompatible with other UNIX systems, or to make any such change part of
> >
> > I hope that your attitude doesnt mean that you also wish linux didnt
> > support hardware you have no need for.
>
> I think his attitude just means that he wishes people would stop asking
> for features that they aren't prepared to implement. While not the most
> tolerant of outlooks, it's perfectly reasonable. He also stated that he
> didn't see any need for this feature himself. He certainly didn't say
> that he would actively try to prevent others from providing it.
>
> phil
He did say, however, (in the part you snipped) that he does not think the
option should be included in the kernel. I don't see that his is a very
reasonable approach, since the option would be turned off by default.
Also, there are plenty of people that are capable of supplying a patch
(there was one sent to the mailing list that turns off hard links when
quotas are enabled), but there are also many that could not code it, yet
would benefit from such an option taking up 50 lines of code in the
kernel.
-vermont@gate.net