Re: gnome

[Scott Wimer <scottw dev cgibuilder com>]

I think this is getting a bit out of hand.

Here's an example of why adding the vfs to the kernel would 
essentially suck.

I run FreeBSD at home.  If I want to use mc's ftp vfs right
now, I can, without a problem.  However, if the ftp vfs stuff
was built into the kernel (and we're talking linux kernel
here), then that feature would simply not be available in the
mc for FreeBSD.

So, what's being proposed is a system that we can be certain
would have less functionality (for me and any other FreeBSD,
Solaris, Irix, etc folks) than what we currently experience.
The gain would not be an increase in functionality. 

>From this perspective it's a patently lame idea.

good night,
scottwimer

On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Jimen Ching wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> -- 
>         FAQ: Frequently-Asked Questions at http://www.gnome.org/gnomefaq
>          To unsubscribe: mail gnome-list-request@gnome.org with 
>                        "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
> 
> 

--
Scott Wimer
play  --->    scottw@cgibuilder.com         http://www.cgibuilder.com/
work  --->    scottw@corp.earthlink.net     http://www.earthlink.net/