Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S268108AbUIBJzK (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2004 05:55:10 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S268067AbUIBJzK (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2004 05:55:10 -0400 Received: from c002781a.fit.bostream.se ([217.215.235.8]:9169 "EHLO mail.tnonline.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S268108AbUIBJxU (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Sep 2004 05:53:20 -0400 Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2004 11:52:49 +0200 From: Spam Reply-To: Spam X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Message-ID: <1117111836.20040902115249@tnonline.net> To: Hans Reiser CC: Linus Torvalds , David Masover , Jamie Lokier , Horst von Brand , Adrian Bunk , , Christoph Hellwig , , , Alexander Lyamin aka FLX , ReiserFS List Subject: Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives In-Reply-To: <4136E0B6.4000705@namesys.com> References: <20040826150202.GE5733@mail.shareable.org> <200408282314.i7SNErYv003270@localhost.localdomain> <20040901200806.GC31934@mail.shareable.org> <20040902002431.GN31934@mail.shareable.org> <413694E6.7010606@slaphack.com> <4136A14E.9010303@slaphack.com> <4136C876.5010806@namesys.com> <4136E0B6.4000705@namesys.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2606 Lines: 63 > Linus Torvalds wrote: >> But _my_ point is, no user program is going to take _advantage_ of >> >>anything that only one filesystem on one system offers. >> >> > Apple does not have this problem.... > and yes, the apps will take advantage of it, which is different from > depending on it. If you use the wrong fs you will lose some of the > features of the app. > For 30 years nothing much has happened in Unix filesystem semantics > because of sheer cowardice (excepting Clearcase, which priced itself > into a niche market). It is 25 years past time for someone to change > things. That someone will have first mover advantage, and the more > little semantic features possessed the more lure there will be to use it > which will increase market share which will lure more apps into > depending on it and in a few years the other filesystems will > (deservedly) have only a small market share because the apps won't all > work on them. > Besides, there are enhancements which are simply compelling. You can > write a dramatically better performance version control system with a > much simpler design if the FS is atomic. Our transaction manager > first draft was written by a version control guy, and he would probably > be happy to tell you how lack of atomicity other than rename makes > version control software design hideous. Btw, version control for ordinary files would be a great feature. I think something like it is available through Windows 2000/3 server. Isn't it called "Shadow Copies". It works over network shares. :) It allows you to restore previous versions of the file even if you delete or overwrite it. Features like this do make a good point and helps protecting data - something that is important IMHO. http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/windowsserv/2003/standard/proddocs/en-us/overview_snapshot.asp > We have the performance lead. By next year we will be stable enough for > mission critical servers, and then we start the serious semantic > enhancements. > If you don't embrace progress, then you doom Linux to following behind, > because the guys at Apple are pretty aggressive now that Jobs is back, > and they WILL change the semantics, and they will do so in compelling > ways, and Linux will be reduced to aping them when it should be leading > them. > Hans - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/