15 May
2005
15 May
'05
3:44 p.m.
Rick Langschultz wrote:
Personally this would be my choice.
Tell me what you all think.
I think that it would make sense to implement whatever filesystems we
can -- leaving it to the user to be able to use what they
like/trust/want to tinker with.
Here's a question, again, from an uneducated vantage point: Would it be
possible and not terribly complicated to incorporate "virtual" IFS
drivers that would allow for compression and encryption to be shared
among all filesystems, so that they happen in the kernel, and the kernel
can support it on filesystems that natively support it as well as those
that don't by means of an index file per drive or directory to store the
"extended" attributes of a file (compressed, encrypted, whatever)? This
would then in theory allow filesystems such as FAT to have transparently
compressed and/or encrypted files, even though I would not recommend FAT
to and end user to be used in the first place, but that's just my own
personal opinion.
- Mike
--
Michael B. Trausch <fd0man(a)gmail.com>
Website: http://fd0man.chadeux.net/ Jabber: mtrausch(a)jabber.com
Phone: +1-(678)-522-7934 FAX (US Only): 1-866-806-4647
===================================================================
Do you have PGP or GPG? Key at pgp.mit.edu, Please Encrypt E-Mail!