Re: gnome

[Jimen Ching <jching flex com>]

On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Jeff Garzik wrote:
> FWIW I think tarfs already exists for Linux, as a userfs derivative.
> 
> Read the code.  You are railing against conceptual problems which do not
> exist.

I'm new to the gnome-list, but I understand some things about OS design.
Thus, I tend to agree with Todd Showalter.  A virtual fs should be part of
the kernel.  As with any feature added to the kernel, it will of course
increase the size.  Buf if you make a module out of it, you can have it
loaded on demand.  Thus any negative effects on the kernel can be ignored.
Things, such as permissions and other details about the implementation are
largely irrelavent.

What is relevant is, what effect does it have on applications.  The
purpose of any new API in the kernel is to simplify app development.
Otherwise, we can go back to DOS and directly access the hardware.  With
this in mind, it seems to me that the API should support existing apps as
well as new apps.  Thus, this vfs should support the existing fs API, i.e.
open/close/read/write.  For this reason, vfs should be in the kernel.

This is not a conceptual problem, nor is it an implementation problem,
this is a design problem.  By creating a library fs implementation, you
are changing the UNIX OS design philosophy.  My question to you all is, do
you really know what you're doing when you do this?

If it was anything else besides a fs implementation, then I would agree it
belongs in a library.  It is just that in a monolithic kernel the fs
belongs in the kernel, period.

--jc
--
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching@flex.com     wh6brr@uhm.ampr.org