| 1 |
On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, James wrote: |
| 2 |
> Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann <at> tu-clausthal.de> writes: |
| 3 |
> > > > that is bullshit. If you have ever followed the ml you would now it. |
| 4 |
> > > |
| 5 |
> > > It's been languishing in -mm for ages, never mind any progress that |
| 6 |
> > > namesys itself might make with their own code. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> Well, I'm no Reiser expert, but a few days ago I was reading at kernel |
| 9 |
> newbies and following some links about the future of the linux kernel, when |
| 10 |
> I stumbled across something that really makes sense concerning why many |
| 11 |
> influential kernel devs do not like (trust) reiser4fs: |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> That is the style allows for 'loadable' modules (er the nomenclature is |
| 14 |
> plugin) and the resulting fear that if reiser4 is 'blessed' and included |
| 15 |
> into the linux kernel, then those with advanced knowledge could write very |
| 16 |
> specific modules (of the commercial kind) for niche feature that just plug |
| 17 |
> into reiser4fs. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
the 'modules' are a) compile time addons and b) have to be activated at mkfs. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
But hey, if modules are bad, why not remove it as a feature? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> So Hans and others could develop very cool features that 'plugin' to |
| 26 |
> reiser4fs, but, if they choose, folks would have to *PAY* for these |
| 27 |
> advanced features. That's the whole rub (in essence) as to why reiser4fs |
| 28 |
> will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel folks *do not trust |
| 29 |
> Hans Reiser*....... |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
that accusations came up. I remember. But what about the extremly patched |
| 32 |
Distro kernels? They 'enhance' the kernels with 'special features' and demand |
| 33 |
money for them (yes, I look at you Redhat and Suse). |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
-- |
| 37 |
gentoo-user@l.g.o mailing list |
Archives