Peter Staubach wrote: > Vlad C. wrote: > >> --- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >>> Please treat at greater length how your proposal >>> differs from NFS. >>> >> >> >> I think NFS is not flexible enough because: >> >> 1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or >> NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which themselves >> require root access on both server and client to >> install) >> 2) NFS by definition understands only its own network >> protocol. >> 3) NFS requires root privileges on the client to >> mount. I'm not aware of a way to let normal users >> mount an NFS partition other than listing it in the >> client's fstab and adding the 'users' option... but >> then changing fstab still requires root access. >> 4) Users have to contact their sysadmin every time >> they want to mount a different partition, a different >> subdirectory of the same partition, or if they want to >> change the local mountpoint, all because the partition >> and mountpoint are hard-coded in fstab. >> >> On the other hand, I envision the following: >> > > Please keep in mind that these are restrictions of the current NFS > implementation and are not inherent in an NFS solution. > > The implied need for flexibility is being addressed by NFSv4 and the > ability to understand multiple versions of protocols and multiple > protocols is already resident in the system. We could do some work > to make it more transparent if desired, but it already works. > > Thanx... > > ps > > Peter, do you agree with his point that mounting should be something ordinary users can do on mountpoints they have write permission for?
Do you agree that a systematic review of user friendliness would help NFS? Do you think that NFS should look at SFS and consider adopting some of its features? Hans - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/