From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: using new versions of emacs without stoping a session Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:56:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <83d0lkfw47.fsf@gnu.org> <87pnpkm3mi.fsf@work.i-did-not-set--mail-host-address--so-tickle-me> <83mukneb8k.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: blaine.gmane.org; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:195.159.176.226"; logging-data="92674"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@blaine.gmane.org" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/27.0.50 (gnu/linux) To: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Apr 18 15:59:18 2019 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hH7ZN-000O0B-RP for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:59:17 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:41824 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hH7ZM-0001wt-Sv for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:59:16 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:51981) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hH7Yw-0001mr-Rw for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:58:51 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hH7WO-00081o-2X for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:56:13 -0400 Original-Received: from [195.159.176.226] (port=52230 helo=blaine.gmane.org) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hH7WM-00080Q-Uz for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 09:56:11 -0400 Original-Received: from list by blaine.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1hH7WL-000KXF-Kz for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Thu, 18 Apr 2019 15:56:09 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Cancel-Lock: sha1:tRbDtqnhYmYcp2ZOO2STb8pOdgU= X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.2.x-3.x [generic] X-Received-From: 195.159.176.226 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "help-gnu-emacs" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:119986 Archived-At: > The difference between the systems is on the filesystem level: by > default Windows doesn't allow to unlink file's data from its directory > entry, if some application has that file open, while most Unix > filesystems by default do allow that. I don't know why Windows' > default is what it is. My guess would be that it's linked to the FAT file-system where there is no notion of "inode": the data usually contained in the inode (size, access rights, location of the data blocks, ...) is contained directly in the directory entry. IOW typical "unix" filesystems have an additional indirection, where a directory entry only contains a name and a pointer to an inode (which describes the file), whereas in FAT you don't have that indirection, which makes it impossible for the file to exist at several places at the same time (hardlinks) or for a file to exist without being stored in a directory somewhere. But maybe there's also something about the tradition from which the OS grew. In Unix the tradition is to say that it's the applications's responsability to synchronize between themselves (e.g. locking or somesuch) when accessing the same file (i.e. the OS doesn't make any effort to try and prevent them from stomping on each other), whereas I get the impression that Windows was designed with a more "restrictive/secure" mindset in this respect. Stefan