RE: EFS and gnome/kde (was Re: Request: Test suite for EFS.)

[Svanberg Liss <lisss ydab se>]

> > Would it be possible to use the tar format, instead of a special
> > gnome/kde-file-in-a-filesystem format?
> > Tar is standard, and will probably remain as a standard for compund
files.
>
> While i am no expert or even care (at this point in time) in EFS. I would 
> like to point out that this has been discussed before. Somebody (Miguel I 
> think) outlined EXPLICITLY why tar was not possible. There is /nothing/ 
> wrong with EFS. It /is/ a filesystem - except all stored in one file. 
> Having a whole /filesystem/ is /MUCH/ more powerful than having one tar 
> format (its also probably more efficient). 

I have missed this.
I have nothing against EFS.
But in case you have missed it, there has been a dicussion about EFS contra
XML. XML would probably be even more inefficient than tar, but some people
want it anyway.
They want it because XML is standard, and will probably be readable in
twenty years from now.
Tar will probably be readable in twenty yeras from now, too.

EFS might be readable in twenty yeras from now...
But I don't really care about this.
If the format changes over time, someone will write a convertion program.

> I think this is Havoc's 'backseat coder' analogy. Unless you have 
> actually coded or have experience or have benchmarks with this tarfs/EFS 
> then you can make comments about it. Otherwise, just leave it up to the 
> GNOME hackers to sort out.

It was a question.
Dont call me a "backseat coder".
Btw, I DO have experience from coding filesystems.
However I DON't have experience from EFS or tar.

I think this is rather a "no one that isn't coding on my project, should
talk about, or have questions about it" analogy.
GNOME is an open project, right?
And I do have rights to ask questions about an open project, whithout being
told to shut up, or am I wrong?

Im sorry that I didn't realize that EFS was a TRUE filesystem, but you could
have told me so in another way.

// Liss