--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might look into SFS by David Mazieres, some
> concepts in it are
> likely to interest you.
Thank you for your suggestion. I've taken a look at
SFS (http://www.fs.net/sfswww/), and I like its
emphasis on user-friendliness and security. It's a
--- Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vlad C. wrote:
>
> >--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Please treat at greater length how your proposal
> >>differs from NFS.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
> >
> >1) NFS requires
Take a look at FUSE, it should be able to do all you need
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Take a look at FUSE, it should be able to do all you need
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--- Peter Staubach [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Vlad C. wrote:
--- Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please treat at greater length how your proposal
differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP
Hans Reiser wrote:
Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something
ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for?
Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help
NFS? Do you think that NFS should look at SFS and consider
Peter Staubach wrote:
> Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>> Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something
>> ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for?
>>
>> Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help
>> NFS? Do you think that NFS
Peter Staubach wrote:
> Vlad C. wrote:
>
>> --- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Please treat at greater length how your proposal
>>> differs from NFS.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
>>
>> 1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
>>
Vlad C. wrote:
--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Please treat at greater length how your proposal
differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which themselves
require root
Vlad C. wrote:
--- Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please treat at greater length how your proposal
differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which themselves
require root
Peter Staubach wrote:
Vlad C. wrote:
--- Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please treat at greater length how your proposal
differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which
Peter Staubach wrote:
Hans Reiser wrote:
Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something
ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for?
Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help
NFS? Do you think that NFS should look
Hans Reiser wrote:
Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something
ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for?
Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help
NFS? Do you think that NFS should look at SFS and consider
You might look into SFS by David Mazieres, some concepts in it are
likely to interest you.
Hans
Vlad C. wrote:
>--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>>Please treat at greater length how your proposal
>>differs from NFS.
>>
>>
>
>I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
>
>1)
--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please treat at greater length how your proposal
> differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which themselves
require root access on both server and
I believe he is suggesting the addition of an sshfs, ftpfs, webdavfs,
etc. to the kernel, and allowing unprivileged users to mount these
filesystems. (As a side note, I find it somewhat peculiar that he
includes smbfs in an example, since that is already implemented in the
kernel.) Although he
administered by
>the kernel in a proposed framework called Linux
>On-Demand Network Access (LODNA), which would achieve
>seamless network integration regardless (or even in
>the absence) of DEs, thus increasing usability.
>
>INTRODUCTION:
>
>When VFS is implemented
Recent discussion on ReiserFS 4 has focused on the
advantages and disadvantages of VFS at the kernel
level versus the Desktop Environment (DE) level. I
believe network locations should be administered by
the kernel in a proposed framework called Linux
On-Demand Network Access (LODNA), which would
--- Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please treat at greater length how your proposal
differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which themselves
require root access on both server and
You might look into SFS by David Mazieres, some concepts in it are
likely to interest you.
Hans
Vlad C. wrote:
--- Hans Reiser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Please treat at greater length how your proposal
differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires
Recent discussion on ReiserFS 4 has focused on the
advantages and disadvantages of VFS at the kernel
level versus the Desktop Environment (DE) level. I
believe network locations should be administered by
the kernel in a proposed framework called Linux
On-Demand Network Access (LODNA), which would
by
the kernel in a proposed framework called Linux
On-Demand Network Access (LODNA), which would achieve
seamless network integration regardless (or even in
the absence) of DEs, thus increasing usability.
INTRODUCTION:
When VFS is implemented at the KDE/GNOME level, we
end up with the unfortunate
I believe he is suggesting the addition of an sshfs, ftpfs, webdavfs,
etc. to the kernel, and allowing unprivileged users to mount these
filesystems. (As a side note, I find it somewhat peculiar that he
includes smbfs in an example, since that is already implemented in the
kernel.) Although he
23 matches
Mail list logo
