Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.snarked.org!news.linkpendium.com!news.linkpendium.com!panix!not-for-mail From: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Newsgroups: comp.lang.c Subject: Re: [sot] file times / file metadata Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:35:20 +0000 (UTC) Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC Lines: 29 Message-ID: References: <5a91718b-b272-4cdf-adfd-8f6777851b23@googlegroups.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: spitfire.i.gajendra.net X-Trace: reader2.panix.com 1512416120 1547 166.84.136.80 (4 Dec 2017 19:35:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@panix.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 19:35:20 +0000 (UTC) X-Newsreader: trn 4.0-test77 (Sep 1, 2010) Originator: cross@spitfire.i.gajendra.net (Dan Cross) Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.c:123820 In article , Jerry Stuckle wrote: >On 11/30/2017 4:43 PM, Dan Cross wrote: >> In article , >> Jerry Stuckle wrote: >>>>> Until the file is modified, it is exactly like a symbolic link. There >>>>> is only one copy of the file on the disk, and if something happens to >>>>> that copy the file is lost. >>>>> >>>>> When the file changes, the original is read and a copy made. But not >>>>> until then. >>>> >>>> Nope. >>> >>> That's what copy on write is, Dan. But we already know your head is so >>> far up your arse tat you can see your tonsils. >> >> Nope. > >ROFLMAO! What an intelligent response - NOT! > >Why do you think it is called COPY ON WRITE? A copy is not made until >something is written to the file. Until that time, you basically have a >symlink to the file. Nope. - Dan C.