Lillie Brewer wrote:
Greetings Reiserfs-list!!
Anal movies from Darryl
http://www.geocities.com/kelsey5294
A chubby lady in this action movie series from Sebas
author although
artful deity diet
similar from the hypnosis for it to be coincidence. Everywhere in the
Thank you
Hi,
there's another Reiser4 article on linux.com [1], mainly about
politics. Neither much of the technical discussion is covered, nor are
the comments too positive, but it may be interesting anyway.
One thing which bothers me most: Whenever such an article appears it's
commented mostly by
Tassilo Horn wrote:
[1] http://www.linux.com/article.pl?sid=06/07/31/1548201
From the article:
To complicate matters, Reiser4's approach lands the filesystem in the
middle of a longstanding convention of avoiding plugins in the kernel,
mainly to avoid architectural complications, but also
Hello David,
Saturday, August 5, 2006, 4:55:16 PM, you wrote:
We should really find something better to call them than plugins, or
we should come up with a standard copy'n'paste statement to refute this.
I agree. As Andrew Morton said:
The plugins appear to be wildly misnamed - they're just an
I like using a term that is already in an accepted part of the
kernel. Extensions might smack of plugins a bit much, and we're
trying to avoid just doing a s/plugins/extensions/ of the
arguments we're seeing now.
--Clay
On 18:22 Sat 05 Aug , Maciej Sołtysiak wrote:
So we're talking about
Jan-Benedict Glaw [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 12:17:12 -0700, Clay Barnes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 20:43 Mon 31 Jul , Jan-Benedict Glaw wrote:
On Mon, 2006-07-31 20:11:20 +0200, Matthias Andree [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jan-Benedict Glaw schrieb am 2006-07-31:
[Crippled DMA
Clay Barnes wrote:
I like using a term that is already in an accepted part of the
kernel. Extensions might smack of plugins a bit much, and we're
trying to avoid just doing a s/plugins/extensions/ of the
arguments we're seeing now.
We could do that with almost anything:
Or just modules...
I think the core thing we have to have to win this argument is
a) A word that isn't *instantly* associated with banned things.
b) The ability to point to the technology to point to the design
and say look, Look, it's *impossible* to use this design to put
binary modules into the kernel. Even if
Clay Barnes wrote:
I think the core thing we have to have to win this argument is
a) A word that isn't *instantly* associated with banned things.
That'd be nice.
b) The ability to point to the technology to point to the design
and say look, Look, it's *impossible* to use this design to put
A really stupid question ... why not put Reiser4 in one of the BSDs?
And after it's got mainstream use, if it proves its worth, there'll be
more pressure for Linux to adopt.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, David Masover wrote:
Clay Barnes wrote:
I think the core thing we have to have to win this
TongKe Xue wrote:
A really stupid question ... why not put Reiser4 in one of the BSDs?
And after it's got mainstream use, if it proves its worth, there'll be
more pressure for Linux to adopt.
It will likely take far more work to port it to BSD than it will to be
included in Linux. And
(I lost someone's response sorry)
Re: hard to get into BSD
There's Dragonflybsd; they seem very chill / acceptable to new ideas.
On Sat, 5 Aug 2006, TongKe Xue wrote:
A really stupid question ... why not put Reiser4 in one of the BSDs?
And after it's got mainstream use, if it proves its
12 matches
Mail list logo
