From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261286AbVF3SN0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:13:26 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261235AbVF3SN0 (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:13:26 -0400 Received: from hummeroutlaws.com ([12.161.0.3]:43271 "EHLO atpro.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262885AbVF3SLF (ORCPT ); Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:11:05 -0400 From: "Jim Crilly" Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:10:00 -0400 To: Markus =?iso-8859-1?Q?T=F6rnqvist?= Cc: shevek@bur.st, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: reiser4 vs politics: linux misses out again Message-ID: <20050630180959.GC24468@voodoo> Mail-Followup-To: Markus =?iso-8859-1?Q?T=F6rnqvist?= , shevek@bur.st, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org References: <1120134372.42c3e4e49e610@webmail.bur.st> <20050630153326.GB24468@voodoo> <20050630160244.GV11013@nysv.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20050630160244.GV11013@nysv.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 06/30/05 07:02:44PM +0300, Markus Törnqvist wrote: > On Thu, Jun 30, 2005 at 11:33:26AM -0400, Jim Crilly wrote: > > >> I label according to the observed effect. I haven't read the code. > >Of course not, it's not like the code actually matters, right? > > As for Reiser4, they're fixing the code now to look more Linuxy > and all's well. > > The discussion is "Should the VFS be extended to support files-as-dirs > or data objects by using what we already have in Reiser4 in -mm, although > disabled." > > >So? Most of the complaints about Linux on the desktop are userland > >problems. Adding cool features to the kernel won't make a big difference, > >if for no other reason than it will take a long time for support to make it > >into things like Gnome and KDE. And that's if they choose to support them, > > And people who'd like to use something lighter than Gnome or KDE > and still use these nice features? > Then work with whatever WM you want to help them support what makes sense for them. For instance, I use Enlightenment but most of the crap proposed in Reiser4 doesn't make sense for E because there's no filemanager or anything. The image thumbnails in metadata might be nice, but I wouldn't throw a fit if the current runtime generated thumbnails were still used. > > >they have to support other OSes as well and adding support for features > >that are Linux-specific isn't to be taken lightly, especially since these > >would be less than Linux-specific, they would be tied to a single > >filesystem on Linux. > > They would not be tied to a single filesystem, naturally, I think > we can all agree that case is closed, as it'll just spawn another > waste-of-time flamewar. > Nothing has happened so far, once the VFS extensions are laid out, documented and implemented we can begin to start saying that some of the features are fs agnostic. > >> Someone shoulda simply forked it then. When Hans first said 'replace VFS with > >> reiser4'. I doubt he could have done it by himself ... they (trolls) would > [...] > >He can still do that, nothing is stopping him from forking Reisux and > >trying to woo developers. > > It'd be much better to talk this thing through.. > There have been pretty good arguments for the extended VFS, that it > would be doable. It may just be less of a unix after that, or less > of Linux as we know it now. > I'm not advocating a fork, I just think it's stupid that so many people have been saying "Stop arguing, just accept reiser4 as-is because it's fast and cool!!!!" > The circular reasoning "We don't want Reiser4's files-as-dirs in > before they're tested. We also have them disabled by default. > They should not be implemented on this layer here, but we won't > let you touch our VFS." is bad. > > Surely if the things started to go into the VFS in a separate, > official tree, it'd no longer be just Namesys doing the work. > > >And what is better for Linux? It's all about perspective and the people on > >this mailing list have to maintain the kernel from a developer's standpoint > >and if they start accepting every new feature regardless of complexity, > >maintainability, etc the kernel will become a nightmare. > > The filesystem is tested well enough to go in. For real. > It may not be production stable with immediacy but it is tested. > People have been saying the same thing about reiser3 for years and yet every time I break down and try it again for whatever reason I find a nice new corner case that causes me headaches and usually ends up in me going back to ext3 or XFS. > The extended semantics are a separate matter. > > >And what happens in 2 years when Hans posts about reiser5 fixing all of the > >bad things about reiser4 and that reiser5 should be merged ASAP so that > >everyone can upgrade again? > > Then someone steps up and goes "No, shut the fuck up and fix the code, > we gave you your shot" or something. > > Community pressure. > Right, because Hans is so damned receptive. > > And it'll be a lot easier with the new VFS. > I'm not buying it, but only time will tell. > >And you're asking the kernel devs to get a wider scope on life? It sounds > >like you're not even living in the same reality that I am. > > Sometimes it also seems people would much rather shout at each > other than see that reasons are starting to pop up why Linux > could lose popularity. > I don't disagree, there are many aspects of each section of a Linux distro where decisions can affect how Linux is perceived by current and new users. But IMO not letting reiser4 in, in it's current state, isn't going to send a bunch of Linux users running to get Macs. > I accidentally deleted the paragraph with you saying the page > reads like a commercial. > > I half agree, Hans has written that well, but maybe for > people who would pay him money to do his work. > Therefore some of the stuff is a bit obscure. Like what is now > Reiser4.1 (ie. ..metas/ whatever, I believe) is apparently referred > to as Reiser6 there. > I understand why he wants to have his marketing pages and I don't care if they exist, but you would think he would also want to have some SDK-type pages where it explains the new features, the "plug-in" API and such. > It'd be damned nice to see that page revisited a bit, maybe not much, > but getting the names straight and having one of the tech guys write > tech documentation that's clearly accessible. > > That page does still not change the situation that the code exists > to some extent, which could be merged to the VFS layer by > extending it a bit and this would be easiest done in a tree that > people will want to hack on. > But if big VFS changes are going to happen, I doubt anyone would want to make them in -linus or -mm because there's probably going to be a lot of initial breakage. Maybe this would be a good reason to fork 2.7? > And frankly this amount of tautology is starting to get even > on my nerves :) > I agree, it was interesting for the first few days but now most of the threads have gone so far OT that it's just stupid. > -- > mjt > Jim.