On Mon, 24 Jul 2000, Sarang Lakare wrote:
> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2000 11:57:37 -0400
> From: Sarang Lakare <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [expert] new reiser question
>
> > there is a sort of flame war going on. Let's just say that Reiser and Cox
> > don't want to get along too well. I personally believe we need Reiserfs to
> > get a real edge against others, and it is annoying to apply the kernel
> > patch each time hoping it works... I would much rather have built-in
> > support!
>
> somethign is better than nothing dosn't work in this world.. if you have
> ReiserFS, it better work... else I don't see any point in including it in
> the kernel.. some distributions like LM itself gives the user the option to
> install ReiserFS in beta.. so thats fine i guess!
>
Well, that is not always the case, as often stuff like developmental USB
drivers and such got their way into the kernel, but marked possibly
dangerous. I just think that if others can get their way into the kernel
with bugs still in them, why shouldn't Reiser? I mean I know tons of
hardware drivers that don't completely work, and some are buggy, Reiserfs
so far has worked without a single bug in my entire test usage. I believe
they should offer the functionality, but warn users enough about possible
problems.
> its ok to test it on home machines.. including it in the kernel means
> mission critical users would want to try out too.. keeping it out of the
> default kernel will stop those users from using it.. and that i think is
> good. its always good to have the best things in and beta things left out
> or marked "beta" clearly.
>
> -sarang
>
>
> >
> > --
> > Regards,
> >
> > Ellick Chan
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Jul 23
>
--
Regards,
Ellick Chan
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jul 24
