Re: Why Linux is doomed (was: Re: FENRIS (nwfs) 1.4.2 Source Code

Jeff Garzik (androsyn@i95.com)
Thu, 24 Jun 1999 09:00:31 -0400 (EDT)


On 23 Jun 1999 leitner@convergence.de wrote:
> > > 4. FAT. 2.3.7 does not compile with FAT file system. Excuse me?
> > > This is the single most frequently used file system besides ext2,
> > > and 2.3.7 does not compile with it? Because of a syntax error?!
> > Details? Details are the difference between a rant and something
> > helpful, useful, and constructive.
>
> It does not compile.
> Details won't help you, since even if I gave you details you would still
> need to verify them and try to compile it yourself and then you would
> notice that FAT does not compile. Please note that I said "does not
> compile" and not "does not work" or "panics at mount time". This is
> some objective bug report that anyone can verify immediately.

Did you also stop to think that the interface was broke *intentionally*.
With the pagecache changes, filesystems were intentionally broken to
prevent them from compiling and corrupting filesystems far and wide. ext2
worked of course as that is what most people are using. And like with the
dcache changes in the 2.1.x kernels ext2 was the model for other
filesytems.

>
> > Also, does it really surprise you that a development kernel in
> > general, and one in which *major* changes have been made and well
> > publicized, in particular, might have some problems in the areas
> > directly involved in the changes.
>
> Sorry, but if the second most frequently used file system does not
> compile, then don't release it. I am not counting the pseudo file
> systems proc and pts here, obviously.
To tell you the truth I don't think Linus really cares too much about FAT
filesytems. Hence the reason why FAT isn't really a speed daemon under
Linux.(Is FAT a speed daemon under anything?) Seriously the whole reason
why they broke the filesystems is so that people can *FIX* them.
Either fix it or quit your whining and wait for somebody else to do it.


> > > Management summary: stuff like this sucks. I am but a programmer with a
> > > SMP box that likes to run the latest kernel. And yes, I expect all the
> > > kernels to compile out of the box. I don't think that this is too much
> > > to ask.
> > It is not too much to expect other people to give you something that you
> > want, without your incurring even minimal responsibilities?
>
> Huh?
> Please think your answer over.
> It is people like me who do the quality assurance for Linux.
> People like me who complain. And if there is just _one_ goof like the
> FAT problem, there are literally thousands of people who will run into
> this problem and be discouraged to upgrade their kernel in the future.

Do you really expect your bean counter to be running a development kernel?
Probably not. He's going to be running the stock kernel for whatever
distribution he bought.

Aaron

-
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/