On Mon, Feb 04, 2008 at 12:58:29AM -0500, Kyle Moffett wrote: > On Jan 16, 2008 1:48 PM, Jeffrey Hutzelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > The "let's just slurp everything into the main distribution so we don't > > have to worry about stable interfaces" approach is really poor. It > > encourages bad engineering practice among people maintaining the main > > distribution, discourages innovation and extension by others, and generally > > doesn't scale. It's far better to either attempt to maintain stable > > external interfaces to the VFS and VM subsystems, or else admit that you > > don't have the resources to do so given the relatively small number of > > external users, in which case you almost certainly also don't have the > > resources to keep on top of updates to something like OpenAFS. > > The Linux Kernel presents a very strong counter-argument-by-example. > The amount of patches merged per released version has been linearly > increasing over the last several years; the 2.6.23 => 2.6.24 patch was > 49MB uncompressed, with a 5.7MB changelog. Of that, a significant > portion were VFS changes which touched most filesystems. The various > filesystem-related changes alone between 2.6.23 and 2.6.24 were > 2.9MB.
So, there are reasons why many of us prefer FreeBSD to Linux. ////jerry ........ For reference, the *entire* OpenAFS diff between 2.4.6 and > 2.5.30 is all of 8.2MB. The Linux Kernel changes include partial > support for having per-process views of a single filesystem > (Specifically /proc, so /proc/net can have differing contents between > network namespaces). Other features which Linux supports that > virtually no other OS does is multiple filesystem namespaces, where > the mount-tree is selectively independent or shared between > namespaces. > _______________________________________________ OpenAFS-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-devel
