lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Jun]   [29]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
SubjectRe: 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
>>>>> "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/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:52    [W:0.030 / U:1.000 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site