Messages in this thread | | | From | "Stefan Monnier" <monnier+lists/linux/kernel/news/@tequila.cs.yale.edu> | Subject | Re: 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 | Date | 29 Jun 1999 13:23:22 -0400 |
| |
>>>>> "Hans" == Hans Reiser <reiser@ceic.com> writes: > 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.
1st, it's not Bill Gates, but someone in his company. 2nd, if he said "Microsoft can commit suicide any time, Linux can't" would you commit suicide just to prove him wrong ?
Stefan
PS: no, I'm not necessarily opposed to innovation in FS semantics, but I still haven't come across any compelling example where forks would provide anything new. Better support for tiny files (like 32bits long) sounds good to me, but I see no reason to really change the basic semantics. In any case, all this `fork' stuff has been way too hazy. Some people tried to propose a rough `user-level forks' implementation description so as to allow constructive criticism, but I still haven't seen any serious description of what `kernel-level fork support' is supposed to look like. You say you're ready for coding, so you must know what you want to code. What is it going to be ? If it's just better support for tiny dirs and files (with attribute inheritance, for example (plus, at worst, a little bit of hint from the application)), I'm all for it.
- 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/
| |