Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 30 Jun 1999 00:09:18 +1000 | From | Richard Gooch <> | Subject | If we cannot trim subject lines, then we end up with a truly horrendous monster like this one, which I think is a suffiently serious problem that we should form a standing committee to evaluate proceedures for addressing this problem (was Re: If we canno |
| |
Hans Reiser writes: > > Bill Gates makes an interesting argument that his centralized control > makes it possible for Microsoft to innovate with a boldness that Linux > cannot, because he can order the whole system to change to accomodate a > new idea, and it will. > > I see you as trying to prove him right.
I don't think M$ is a useful comparison to make. For M$, innovate == bloat and bad design.
> As for NFS, if it's broken, let's fix it. And if the vendors on the > NFS standards committee use their leverage to delay support until > their filesystems catch up, then ignore the standards committee or > obsolete NFS.
If you've got a problem with NFS, try Coda instead. Perhaps that addresses many of your concerns.
> I am sorry Stephen, but you keep harping on the cost of change, I > keep harping on the benefit of change, and we will never convince > each other. It isn't a logical thing.
Firstly, there are legitimate questions about *where* these changes should be made. Perhaps they are best left to a library.
Secondly, we haven't seen a convincining argument as to why putting a FS into a file provides a significant benefit.
What are the tangible benefits of the interface changes you're proposing? Where does the need come from?
Regards,
Richard....
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |