On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:01 AM, Eric Van Hensbergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:30 AM, Uriel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (Wasn't the disaster of adding .u to p9p a clear enough indication of >> how hopeless that path is?) > > Yes, .u was a disaster which is why the most powerful supercomputer in > the world is using it for workload distribution and boot-time. It was > a failure, that's why its not being integrated into commercial cluster > toolkits. It was a failure, that's why its not the current defacto > standard for Linux paravirtualized file systems. It was a failure, > that's why there's an RDMA protocol instance developed by > third-parties, and that's why its not being looked at being integrated > into mainframes and why IBM is not considering funding a development > team to support it. > > Absolute, complete, utter disaster. Completely hopeless.
If corporate acceptance is the new measure of success, maybe we should be using an XML based protocol extension. -sqweek
