lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2006]   [Jul]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
    /
    Date
    From
    SubjectRe: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org regarding reiser4 inclusion
    On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 08:56:03AM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 11:17:41PM +0200, andrea@cpushare.com wrote:
    > > On Wed, Jul 26, 2006 at 10:50:22PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote:
    > > > But depending on the nature of the error, the worst case might be the
    > > > common case (as I've already explained in another email).
    > > >
    > > > If you can't ensure the quality of your data, please don't use this data
    > > > to wrongly draw any conclusions from them [1].
    > >
    > > Please read the footer of the KLive pages:
    > >
    > > "The use of the information and of the software in this website is at
    > > your own risk. KLive probably doesn't represent a reliable sample of
    > > the real usage of the Linux Kernel."
    >
    > It was you who wrongly said:
    > "With KLive I can attempt to estimate market share of _kernel_ code"
    >
    > Hadn't you read your own disclaimer?

    There is no contradiction in the two statements. To attempt to
    estimate something I don't need a reliable sample of the whole
    population. Estimation is still a statistical thing. Also I said
    attempt to estimate, it doesn't mean I will make it.

    If you don't consider those results a positive for reiser4, it can
    only mean you expected reiser4 to have a much higher share among the
    KLive users. This is obvious.

    > Every time someone will repeat the "1:5 ratio for reiser4:ext3 users",
    > this will be an additional proof it's really worse than no data.

    If they say "1:5 ratio for reiser4:ext3 KLive users" everything will
    be correct and nobody can object because it's a fact.

    I said myself that I'm no reiserfs user, and I don't plan to become
    one any time soon (especially on my production systems), I'm only
    reporting plain numbers as KLive measured the stuff. I'm surprised as
    much as you are, but then I've to report facts, and not my own
    opinions.

    As far as I'm concerned the thing I like less of reiser4 is the plugin
    thing, I'd be less concerned if that was a microkernel (fuse-like)
    userland plugin system. Anyway with time perhaps things can change and
    become userland based, and the stuff can be moved into vfs if that
    code really belongs there as some kernel developer says. That doesn't
    mean reiser4 can't be merged first and the stuff moved into vfs
    later. xfs when was merged also pratically rewrote a vfs internally
    that was meant to work with irix, if Christoph didn't complain about
    xfs being merged, I don't see what's the problem of reiser4 being
    merged even if it rewrites some part of vfs. xfs is also still having
    various special features like the pinhole one that only belongs to the
    vfs instead but nobody complains.

    And if reiser4 is really so bad as they say, once people starts losing
    data they will spread the word of not using it. As long as it's marked
    experimental I don't see a big issue, the wireless driver for broadcom
    chip will eat your filesystem too if the reverse engineered dma
    operations writes into a buffer header instead of an skb.
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

    \
     
     \ /
      Last update: 2006-07-27 13:53    [W:4.192 / U:0.124 seconds]
    ©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site