--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might look into SFS by David Mazieres, some
> concepts in it are
> likely to interest you.
Thank you for your suggestion. I've taken a look at
SFS (http://www.fs.net/sfswww/), and I like its
emphasis on user-friendliness and security. It's a
toss-up
--- Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 synchronizati
Take a look at FUSE, it should be able to do all you need
-
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/
Hans Reiser wrote:
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
Peter Staubach wrote:
> Hans Reiser wrote:
>
>> 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 sh
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
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 ac
You might look into SFS by David Mazieres, some concepts in it are
likely to interest you.
Hans
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) N
--- 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
I believe he is suggesting the addition of an sshfs, ftpfs, webdavfs,
etc. to the kernel, and allowing unprivileged users to mount these
filesystems. (As a side note, I find it somewhat peculiar that he
includes smbfs in an example, since that is already implemented in the
kernel.) Although he re
inistered by
>the kernel in a proposed framework called Linux
>On-Demand Network Access (LODNA), which would achieve
>seamless network integration regardless (or even in
>the absence) of DEs, thus increasing usability.
>
>INTRODUCTION:
>
>When VFS is implemented at the
Recent discussion on ReiserFS 4 has focused on the
advantages and disadvantages of VFS at the kernel
level versus the Desktop Environment (DE) level. I
believe network locations should be administered by
the kernel in a proposed framework called Linux
On-Demand Network Access (LODNA), which would
12 matches
Mail list logo
