Re: gnome

[Jeff Garzik <jgarzik pobox com>]

Todd Showalter wrote:
> If I'm not running X, I'm not running gnome, which means
> if I want the services you are proposing on the console, I have to have
> duplicate functionality in two libraries.

I don't see any developers arguing with this at all.

>     What if tar on the local system handles forked files (cf: BeOS...)?

If you implement tar in the kernel, you have to keep track of the
necessary file permissions and guard against security holes.  The kernel
takes of this for us when doing I/O in userland.

>     There are problems even in X.  What do you do (for instance) if the
> FreeBSD folks go and impliment tarfs as part of the kernel, and it behaves
> differently from the gnome version of tarfs?  Do you ignore the underlying
> OS fs?  Do you throw out your own if you find one in the system?  Either
> way, it becomes inconsistant.  If you toss the gnome version it is
> inconsistant across gnome (which has to be coded for).  If you toss out
> the local version, behavior is inconsistant on the same machine inside and
> outside of gnome.

FWIW I think tarfs already exists for Linux, as a userfs derivative.
 

>     Part of the function of the core OS is to support filesystems.  By
> hijacking that responsibility, you create the possibility for conflict in
> the future.  You are also taking responsibility for things like security,
> locking, and other general filesystem issues that may require suid
> binaries and will be a hassle to maintain.

I don't see how reading tar files requires suid access.


>     We already have a standard way of accessing files and network sockets,
> for the most part.

"for the most part" will bite you in the ass when you least expect it.


> In some operating systems there is talk of overlaying
> a filesystem on the network protocol to offer the kind of service being
> discussed (at least with respect to ftp).  Special-casing gnome to handle
> a new set of filesystems extends gnome in ways that it should probably not
> be extended.

Read the code.  You are railing against conceptual problems which do not
exist.

	Jeff