Bernd Schubert wrote:
An alternative might be a reiser4 fuse port.
Fuse is not performance effective.
Bruce, I read your article on Linus and GPL V3, and I understand that
you are frustrated by his not going for V3. I suspect the main thing
that sparked your concern in writing the article about reiser4 is that I
am somehow doing something different that affects licensing, and not
conforming on
On 02:28 Wed 09 Aug , Hans Reiser wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not one of which editors approve. It too easily
looks as though the writer is being influenced by the source.
If I were to do so, I'd risk being banned from publication.
Uhm... interesting. It's not that I have so much
Andreas Schäfer wrote:
On 02:28 Wed 09 Aug , Hans Reiser wrote:
Unfortunately, it's not one of which editors approve. It too easily
looks as though the writer is being influenced by the source.
If I were to do so, I'd risk being banned from publication.
Uhm... interesting. It's not
On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 02:28 -0600, Hans Reiser wrote:
Bruce, I read your article on Linus and GPL V3, and I understand that
you are frustrated by his not going for V3.
To be honest, it was more the fact that he made an obviously false
statement, and I happened to be in a position to know it
Bruce Byfield wrote:
Wow. I thought only the judiciary insulated itself from ever learning
of its mistakes that well.:-/
Oh, we have ways of learning. As witness this email exchange :)
You are right, it is only the judiciary.;-)
TongKe Xue wrote:
A really stupid question ... why not put Reiser4 in one of the BSDs?
The cost to port to BSD is about $500k, and I am not possessed of a lot
of money at this time. There is also a license issue, I don't want
reiser4 to be BSD licensed, people who want proprietary additions to
Bruce, regarding a longstanding convention of avoiding plugins in the
kernel, considering that we are the first and only ones ever to have
plugins, and considering the existence of binary kernel modules, I don't
think your characterization is accurate. Perhaps there was some
licensing controversy
On Sunday 06 August 2006 10:20, Hans Reiser wrote:
TongKe Xue wrote:
A really stupid question ... why not put Reiser4 in one of the BSDs?
The cost to port to BSD is about $500k, and I am not possessed of a lot
of money at this time. There is also a license issue, I don't want
reiser4 to be
Bernd Schubert wrote:
An alternative might be a reiser4 fuse port. Has some advantages:
- Doesn't need to be included into the kernel.
- can be GPL
- Referring to the fuse site it also works on BSD (http://fuse4bsd.creo.hu/).
- Kills one of the major arguments on LKML - if reiser4 is
On Sunday 06 August 2006 14:41, Lexington Luthor wrote:
Bernd Schubert wrote:
An alternative might be a reiser4 fuse port. Has some advantages:
- Doesn't need to be included into the kernel.
- can be GPL
- Referring to the fuse site it also works on BSD
(http://fuse4bsd.creo.hu/).
Hi again,
I think your characterization of plugins as something we impose on the
VFS is unfair. Plugins exist entirely internally to reiser4 --- we
to be honest I hope the force from kernel developers will not take
away any more abilities and features away from reiserfs!
If reiser4 is tied
Bernd Schubert wrote:
Well, by having a FUSE port just more users would use reiser4, which might
increase the force to the linux distributors to include reiser4 into their
kernel versions.
I don't think reiser4 would gain many users if it is crippled by being
in userspace. All the lazy
Lexington Luthor wrote:
Bernd Schubert wrote:
An alternative might be a reiser4 fuse port. Has some advantages:
Please please no. The kernel people will use that as an argument for
keeping it out of the kernel.
They'll use anything as an argument for keeping it out of the kernel.
This one
I'm a total idiot. Please forgive my stupidity.
From a purely technical perspective, what does VFS lack that makes
VFS-modules so much harder than Reiser-modules?
Thanks,
--TongKe
On Sun, 6 Aug 2006, David Masover wrote:
Lexington Luthor wrote:
Bernd Schubert wrote:
An alternative might
Hans:
I suspect that most of your comments are a result of mild misreadings,
or inferences that may not be inevitable.
My comments are interspersed below.
On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 03:19 -0600, Hans Reiser wrote:
Bruce, regarding a longstanding convention of avoiding plugins in the
kernel,
Hi,
there's another Reiser4 article on linux.com [1], mainly about
politics. Neither much of the technical discussion is covered, nor are
the comments too positive, but it may be interesting anyway.
One thing which bothers me most: Whenever such an article appears it's
commented mostly by
Tassilo Horn wrote:
[1] http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/07/31/1548201
From the article:
To complicate matters, Reiser4's approach lands the filesystem in the
middle of a longstanding convention of avoiding plugins in the kernel,
mainly to avoid architectural complications, but also
Hello David,
Saturday, August 5, 2006, 4:55:16 PM, you wrote:
We should really find something better to call them than plugins, or
we should come up with a standard copy'n'paste statement to refute this.
I agree. As Andrew Morton said:
The plugins appear to be wildly misnamed - they're just an
I like using a term that is already in an accepted part of the
kernel. Extensions might smack of plugins a bit much, and we're
trying to avoid just doing a s/plugins/extensions/ of the
arguments we're seeing now.
--Clay
On 18:22 Sat 05 Aug , Maciej Sołtysiak wrote:
So we're talking about
Clay Barnes wrote:
I like using a term that is already in an accepted part of the
kernel. Extensions might smack of plugins a bit much, and we're
trying to avoid just doing a s/plugins/extensions/ of the
arguments we're seeing now.
We could do that with almost anything:
Or just modules...
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.
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
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
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
TongKe Xue wrote:
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.
It will likely take far more work to port it to BSD than it will to be
included in Linux. And
(I lost someone's response sorry)
Re: hard to get into BSD
There's Dragonflybsd; they seem very chill / acceptable to new ideas.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, TongKe Xue wrote:
A really stupid question ... why not put Reiser4 in one of the BSDs?
And after it's got mainstream use, if it proves its
26 matches
Mail list logo
