Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:44:10 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:43:56 -0500 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:60604 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Fri, 7 Dec 2001 13:42:55 -0500 Date: Fri, 07 Dec 2001 10:42:00 -0800 From: "Martin J. Bligh" Reply-To: "Martin J. Bligh" To: Larry McVoy cc: Henning Schmiedehausen , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: SMP/cc Cluster description Message-ID: <2699373574.1007721720@mbligh.des.sequent.com> In-Reply-To: <20011207102318.J27589@work.bitmover.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/2.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org >> So would that mean I would need bitkeeper installed in order to change my >> password? > > No, that's just one way to solve the problem. Another way would be to have > a master/slave relationship between the replicas sort of like CVS. In fact, > you could use CVS. I'm not sure that's any less vomitworthy. Keeping things simple that users and/or sysadmins have to deal with is a Good Thing (tm). I'd have the complexity in the kernel, where complexity is pushed to the kernel developers, thanks. >> And IIRC, bitkeeper is not free either? > > (... some slighty twisted concept of free snipped.) > > But this is more than a bit off topic... No it's not that far off topic, my point is that you're shifting the complexity problems to other areas (eg. system mangement / the application level / filesystems / scheduler load balancing) rather than solving them. Martin. - 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/