Messages in this thread | | | From | lilo <> | Date | Wed, 24 Jul 1996 07:32:43 -0500 (CDT) | Subject | Re: Alternate solutions (Was: Re: NFS still has caching problem) |
| |
On Mon, 22 Jul 1996, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> why should we follow what sun does? We wrote our own filesystem > because it is better than ufs. similarly we can still have NFS, no matter > how broken it is and move forward at the same time by creating a better > filesystem ( one that works rather than just research based; although we > can pick the minds of people that are versed in it, there were some good > concepts in the Sprite filesystem ). > > Because for a network filesystem, and indeed any client/server > application, it's probably not worth our collective time to write a > Linux-only solution. It won't be able to talk to all of the NFS servers > that are running on other platforms. > > One of of the things which Microsoft finally learned was that > solutions that depend on everyone running the same operating system, > both clients and servers, just aren't going to cut it. That's why > they've started embracing Internet protocols. And if Windows, with its > huge user base, wasn't able to hack it, Linux certainly won't be able to > win with a Linux-only networking filesystem solution. > > If someone wants to try, they are of course welcome --- it's a > free country, and people can spend their time on whatever they want. I > simply suggest that there are probably much better ways that a good > kernel hacker might spend their time.
On the other hand, a solution developed on Linux using the free-software model is not going to be a proprietary solution. Available source code can help in acceptance.
If there is no good, non-proprietary solution available, there's nothing wrong with developing a portable solution under Linux. If NFS simply won't cut it, you design something that will. That's what RFC's are for....
lilo
| |