A really stupid question ... why not put Reiser4 in one of the BSDs?
And after it's got mainstream use, if it proves its worth, there'll be
more pressure for Linux to adopt.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, David Masover wrote:
Clay Barnes wrote:
I think the core thing we have to have to win this argument is
a) A word that isn't *instantly* associated with banned things.
That'd be nice.
b) The ability to point to the technology to point to the design
and say look, "Look, it's *impossible* to use this design to put
binary modules into the kernel." Even if it's as hard as ATI or
nVidia modules to put it in, that'll be enough to put up a fight
against inclusion.
Why?
Why does it have to be impossible to do binary things with the kernel? I
mean, if Linus hates GPL3 because it limits what people do with the kernel...
Besides, you can't make it impossible, you can only make it about as hard as
it is now. The license is the issue here.
The *only* way to win a polical/personal fight
is to remove any possible objection until resistance looks purely
stupid and wholly unsubtantiated.
I agree. That's why we not only need a new name, we also need a cut'n'paste
argument that just makes this look stupid.
And it has to be short enough that cut'n'paste isn't bad, because if we refer
people to the FAQ, they won't read it.
I was just saying to my roomate that I was losing hope for Reiser4
because I didn't see an end to the politics any time soon.
Yes, it can look pretty hopeless.
There's only one possible way I see to get in. You must ask for an
absolute list of things that are objectionable. You should then
ask *before you start work* about removal of any items that are either a)
impossible, or b) illogical. Once you've gotten the
official stamp of approval of the (posibly recvised) absolute list
of objections, you have to do it, completely and exactly. If they
agreed that that is everything they find wrong and promised that
they would include Reiser4 if those issues were resolved, then they
really *have* to put it in then.
The problem is, they don't. There have been some fairly definitive lists in
the past, that were done, but maybe not quite the way they were expected.
The core of all this is that rather than leaving an open-ended task
that can be expanded at will, they are given limits to how long the
objections can be spread out.
Problem is, dictators can do whatever they want, even if they said something
else before.
And that's all assuming you can get them to agree to such a list, and agree
to abide by it. They either wouldn't go for it, or they would come up with a
list that effectively kills Reiser4, turning it into ext3.
