Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sunday 17 February 2008, James wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann volker.armin.hemmann at tu-clausthal.de writes: that is bullshit. If you have ever followed the ml you would now it. It's been languishing in -mm for ages, never mind any progress that namesys itself might make with their own code. Well, I'm no Reiser expert, but a few days ago I was reading at kernel newbies and following some links about the future of the linux kernel, when I stumbled across something that really makes sense concerning why many influential kernel devs do not like (trust) reiser4fs: That is the style allows for 'loadable' modules (er the nomenclature is plugin) and the resulting fear that if reiser4 is 'blessed' and included into the linux kernel, then those with advanced knowledge could write very specific modules (of the commercial kind) for niche feature that just plug into reiser4fs. A further HUGE objection is the extreme difficulty in writing an fsck for such a filesystem. Don't get me wrong, Hans' ideas for reiser4 are extremely forward-thinking and possibly very useful and valuable. Imagine the possibilities - the user could tune the filesystem to do whatever he needed, plug in modules optimized for the data the user is using, even in ways that namesys never predicted. WinFS could actually happen, just not on Windows evil grin However, not at the expense of existing deployments and methods. An fsck is an absolute requirement for Linux's largest user-base on something with the scope of reiser4. As you say, the prime reason is probably that other kernel devs are fed up with the person called Hans Reiser and simply ignore him or won't deal with him. That is their right, it applies in every other facet of life. There's a parallel between reiser4/XFS and Con's cpu scheduler versus Ingo's. Linus trusts Ingo and has complete faith that Ingo will continue to maintain his work. He didn't have the same warm fuzzy feeling with Con. There's a truck-load more at stake with new kernel sub-systems that purely code quality, regardless of what the PR line syays -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sunday 17 February 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: So Hans and others could develop very cool features that 'plugin' to reiser4fs, but, if they choose, folks would have to *PAY* for these advanced features. That's the whole rub (in essence) as to why reiser4fs will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel folks *do not trust Hans Reiser*... that accusations came up. I remember. But what about the extremly patched Distro kernels? They 'enhance' the kernels with 'special features' and demand money for them (yes, I look at you Redhat and Suse). Which proves that the GPL is working AS DESIGNED. What's wrong with that? Red Hat don't lock you out from their stuff. The fee you pay is in return for a promise from RH that if you have a problem with their stuff and phone them, they will pick up the phone and talk to you. If you don't like the fee structure, you know where the src rpm's are, you just don't get the human support you didn't pay for. There's always Centos who quite happily rebuild Red Hat's special stuff for you. As for SuSE, there's no evil there. A lot of stupidity and a lot of dumb-ass Novell who can't see a tree because there's a huge forest in the way, but no evil. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sunday 17 February 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:41:36AM +, James wrote: That's the whole rub (in essence) as to why reiser4fs will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel folks *do not trust Hans Reiser*... His abusive shenanigans are an issue, but, not really why reiser4fs is doomed. As I understand it, the main arguments against reiser4 are that it duplicates a ton of code in the VFS (Virtual File System) it did not duplicate code, but contained code some devs believed to belong into the vfs layer. Funnily some month ago ext4 devs tried the same - and had to be stopped by Andrew Morton. You seem to be equating two things that are actually vastly different outside the realm of just the code. There's a difference between on the one hand trying a dodgy tactic out of ignorance but still being willing to listen to reason, and on the other hand being a total complete prick who is always convinced of their own rightness and the rest of the world is always completely wrong. Guess which one is Hans? Guess which one the rest of the team can work with and accomplish something with? Guess which one of those behaviours dovetails nicely with the definition of a psychotic? -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: So Hans and others could develop very cool features that 'plugin' to reiser4fs, but, if they choose, folks would have to *PAY* for these advanced features. That's the whole rub (in essence) as to why reiser4fs will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel folks *do not trust Hans Reiser*... that accusations came up. I remember. But what about the extremly patched Distro kernels? They 'enhance' the kernels with 'special features' and demand money for them (yes, I look at you Redhat and Suse). Which proves that the GPL is working AS DESIGNED. What's wrong with that? Red Hat don't lock you out from their stuff. The fee you pay is in return for a promise from RH that if you have a problem with their stuff and phone them, they will pick up the phone and talk to you. If you don't like the fee structure, you know where the src rpm's are, you just don't get the human support you didn't pay for. There's always Centos who quite happily rebuild Red Hat's special stuff for you. As for SuSE, there's no evil there. A lot of stupidity and a lot of dumb-ass Novell who can't see a tree because there's a huge forest in the way, but no evil. no, you misunderstood me. Why the 'oh my god, reiser4 might be able to use rd party commercial modules (which would have to have compiled into the kernel - thus must be GPLed)' but 'hey, patching kernel with commercial stuff is ok' when it is is done by RedHAT and Suse. And don't forget ccXFS. A cluster extension for XFS by SGI. Closed source, not open - and all the hooks for it are in linux-xfs. So for XFS it was ok to have the ability to load a closed source extension, but for reiser4 it was not ok to habe the ability to extent itself with open source extensions. Do you see the problem? -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2008, James wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann volker.armin.hemmann at tu-clausthal.de writes: that is bullshit. If you have ever followed the ml you would now it. It's been languishing in -mm for ages, never mind any progress that namesys itself might make with their own code. Well, I'm no Reiser expert, but a few days ago I was reading at kernel newbies and following some links about the future of the linux kernel, when I stumbled across something that really makes sense concerning why many influential kernel devs do not like (trust) reiser4fs: That is the style allows for 'loadable' modules (er the nomenclature is plugin) and the resulting fear that if reiser4 is 'blessed' and included into the linux kernel, then those with advanced knowledge could write very specific modules (of the commercial kind) for niche feature that just plug into reiser4fs. A further HUGE objection is the extreme difficulty in writing an fsck for such a filesystem. two weeks ago I had a screw-up in my reiser4-based /var. fsck.reiser4 fixed it nicely. Since the fsck is already there -what is your argument again? Don't get me wrong, Hans' ideas for reiser4 are extremely forward-thinking and possibly very useful and valuable. Imagine the possibilities - the user could tune the filesystem to do whatever he needed, plug in modules optimized for the data the user is using, even in ways that namesys never predicted. WinFS could actually happen, just not on Windows evil grin However, not at the expense of existing deployments and methods. An fsck is an absolute requirement for Linux's largest user-base on something with the scope of reiser4. so we should all be happy that the fsck is there and works. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sunday 17 February 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:41:36AM +, James wrote: That's the whole rub (in essence) as to why reiser4fs will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel folks *do not trust Hans Reiser*... His abusive shenanigans are an issue, but, not really why reiser4fs is doomed. As I understand it, the main arguments against reiser4 are that it duplicates a ton of code in the VFS (Virtual File System) it did not duplicate code, but contained code some devs believed to belong into the vfs layer. Funnily some month ago ext4 devs tried the same - and had to be stopped by Andrew Morton. You seem to be equating two things that are actually vastly different outside the realm of just the code. There's a difference between on the one hand trying a dodgy tactic out of ignorance but still being willing to listen to reason, and on the other hand being a total complete prick who is always convinced of their own rightness and the rest of the world is always completely wrong. and there is a certain asshole-ness to first attack an fs for its 'features' and then do the exact same with your pet-fs. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, James wrote: Volker Armin Hemmann volker.armin.hemmann at tu-clausthal.de writes: that is bullshit. If you have ever followed the ml you would now it. It's been languishing in -mm for ages, never mind any progress that namesys itself might make with their own code. Well, I'm no Reiser expert, but a few days ago I was reading at kernel newbies and following some links about the future of the linux kernel, when I stumbled across something that really makes sense concerning why many influential kernel devs do not like (trust) reiser4fs: That is the style allows for 'loadable' modules (er the nomenclature is plugin) and the resulting fear that if reiser4 is 'blessed' and included into the linux kernel, then those with advanced knowledge could write very specific modules (of the commercial kind) for niche feature that just plug into reiser4fs. the 'modules' are a) compile time addons and b) have to be activated at mkfs. But hey, if modules are bad, why not remove it as a feature? So Hans and others could develop very cool features that 'plugin' to reiser4fs, but, if they choose, folks would have to *PAY* for these advanced features. That's the whole rub (in essence) as to why reiser4fs will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel folks *do not trust Hans Reiser*... that accusations came up. I remember. But what about the extremly patched Distro kernels? They 'enhance' the kernels with 'special features' and demand money for them (yes, I look at you Redhat and Suse). -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:41:36AM +, James wrote: That's the whole rub (in essence) as to why reiser4fs will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel folks *do not trust Hans Reiser*... His abusive shenanigans are an issue, but, not really why reiser4fs is doomed. As I understand it, the main arguments against reiser4 are that it duplicates a ton of code in the VFS (Virtual File System) which underpins all other file systems (ext2/3/4, xfs, jfs, etc) and most developers think the reiser4 parts ought to be in the VFS, or at least not fighting it. Hans doesn't believe that, or professes to believe that is merely stalling tactics, and would rather throw hissy fits than actually discuss it reasonably. But I don't write kernel code, so this is only what I recall from lwn.net reports. -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman rocket surgeon / [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: reiser4 status
On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sun, Feb 17, 2008 at 03:41:36AM +, James wrote: That's the whole rub (in essence) as to why reiser4fs will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel folks *do not trust Hans Reiser*... His abusive shenanigans are an issue, but, not really why reiser4fs is doomed. As I understand it, the main arguments against reiser4 are that it duplicates a ton of code in the VFS (Virtual File System) it did not duplicate code, but contained code some devs believed to belong into the vfs layer. Funnily some month ago ext4 devs tried the same - and had to be stopped by Andrew Morton. -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
