Jonathan Briggs wrote:
>
>Why innovate in the filesystem though, when it would work just as well
>or better in the VFS layer?
>
Why don't we just have one filesystem, think of the advantages.
;-)
I don't try to get other people to follow my lead anymore, I just ship
code that works. Putting
On Mon, 2005-05-30 at 01:19 -0700, Hans Reiser wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:56:35 CDT, David Masover said:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Hans, comment please? Is this approaching v5 / v6 / Future Vision? It
> >>does seem more than a little "clunky" when applied to v4...
> >>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:56:35 CDT, David Masover said:
>
>
>
>>Hans, comment please? Is this approaching v5 / v6 / Future Vision? It
>>does seem more than a little "clunky" when applied to v4...
>>
>>
Well, if you read our whitepaper, we consider relational algebra
On Fri, 27 May 2005 23:56:35 CDT, David Masover said:
> Hans, comment please? Is this approaching v5 / v6 / Future Vision? It
> does seem more than a little "clunky" when applied to v4...
I'm not Hans, but I *will* ask "How much of this is *rationally* doable
without some help from the VFS?".
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hans, comment please? Is this approaching v5 / v6 / Future Vision? It
does seem more than a little "clunky" when applied to v4...
Alexander G. M. Smith wrote:
> Leo Comerford wrote on Wed, 18 May 2005 12:50:38 +0100:
>
>>But if you have relation-di
Leo Comerford wrote on Wed, 18 May 2005 12:50:38 +0100:
> But if you have relation-directories and the ability to find the
> pathnames of a given file, you can do everything you can do with
> subfiles, just as nicely, and more besides. And if subfiles are
> completely redundant and bad news anyway,
