Messages in this thread | | | From | Hans Reiser <> | Date | Tue, 29 Jun 1999 14:23:11 +0000 (/etc/localtime) | Subject | If we cannot change file system semantics, we must concede that Bill Gates is right that Linux cannot innovate (was Re: (reiserfs) File systems are semantically impoverished compared) to databases |
| |
Bill Gates makes an interesting argument that his centralized control makes it possible for Microsoft to innovate with a boldness that Linux cannot, because he can order the whole system to change to accomodate a new idea, and it will.
I see you as trying to prove him right.
I think we are speaking past each other. Any time something like structured storage comes along, it means that the filesystem has failed the developer, otherwise he wouldn't bother. You want to continue failing to provide needed functionality, and you want to tell me not to provide that functionality because it will force you to provide it.
Now you say to me that my being the only file system that doesn't fail the developer isn't useful, and I say, the developer shouldn't use the other file systems. Besides, they'll eventually follow anyway.
As for NFS, if it's broken, let's fix it. And if the vendors on the NFS standards committee use their leverage to delay support until their filesystems catch up, then ignore the standards committee or obsolete NFS.
Reiserfs will go distributed as soon as I get the funding for that. You can do things with caching and trees that are a whole lot nicer than NFS and NIS....
I am sorry Stephen, but you keep harping on the cost of change, I keep harping on the benefit of change, and we will never convince each other. It isn't a logical thing.
Hans
Stephen C. Tweedie writes: > Hi, > > On Sat, 26 Jun 1999 23:35:12 +0000 (/etc/localtime), Hans Reiser > <reiser@ceic.com> said: > > > The goal of reiserfs is not to get every person, who has invented yet > > another namespace that can share the interactions it conducts with no > > other namespace, to convert to reiserfs. The goal of reiserfs is to one > > by one eliminate the reasons why these new namespaces keep getting > > invented rather than using the filesystem namespace. I cannot > > unify the namespaces, I can only somewhat reduce the reasons why they > > fragment, and pontificate a bit at those who fragment them. > > Portability is one of the major reasons why these new namespaces keep > getting invented. One single filesystem _cannot_ fix that: not without > updating NFS too, at the very very least. > > --Stephen
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |