Talk:File Systems: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 9:
:Your first bullet point is dodgy. I wouldn't included it at all because I've seen bad results from taking recommendations seriously. The computing world is full of recommendations which are fine under most circumstances but harmful in others. Your other bullet points are good. The 2nd point gives a good idea of why and when you might want to extract files into another filesystem and the 3rd explains when you wouldn't. Neither of these burden newbies with recommendations to challenge their confidence. The rest of your comment seems to mix logical advice with opinion, and your opinions seem to be based on the fear that OSDev newbies will do the stupidest thing possible without firm guidance. :p While that's not entirely unfounded, I don't recall too many newbies trying hard to make a writeable tarfs. [[User:Eekee|Eekee]] 10:40, 9 February 2022 (CST)
::Yeah, I agree that I left the first bullet point a little vague and that the phrase "the recommended way" implies that someone authoritative is recommending it, even though that isn't the case. It could be rephrased as "tar files are usually manipulated by extracting it first into another file system", which is less prescriptive and more descriptive. My fear of beginners treating UStar like a disk file system (and yes, even making it writable) comes from my own initial misconception (I'm still very much a noob) and from my activity on the OSDev Discord server, where I saw many other beginners share the same misconceptions. And from what I have seen, these misconceptions stem from this article. Also, some didn't realize that it was the format for tar files, even though the "utility to create tar images" point should've given that away (so that might have been an issue of not reading). Thanks for the constructive criticism! --[[User:Lukflug|Lukflug]] 11:18, 9 February 2022 (CST)
:::I am banned from the OSdev Discord for reasons unknown, so I care very little what troubles people there are
I also want to partially retract my comment regarding eager edit protection. The protection log (which I should've consulted before publishing that comment), told me this is the first change in protection in 12 years :P. But I still find it weird to fully protect a page without any discussion in the talk pages. In addition, I have just noticed two minor grammatical mistakes in the page, that I can't correct due to the protection:
Line 15:
* "Implementation Available as static library": I'm also pretty sure "available" should be lower case.
--[[User:Lukflug|Lukflug]] 11:28, 9 February 2022 (CST)
:I unlocked the page again. I primarily locked it to stop the repeated back and forth of reverts - I'm not too familiar with moderation tools on MediaWiki, but we don't seem to have too many options below full locking. That it led to a discussion on the talk page is good to see. I think the main reason we haven't messed with page permissions in a long time is that the wiki has been largely unmoderated - no one's had the necessary permissions until recently. --[[User:Klange|klange]] 23:00, 11 February 2022 (CST)
| |||