Summary of how linux can best avoid the need for streams

Hans Reiser (reiser@ceic.com)
Tue, 29 Jun 1999 16:47:49 +0000 (/etc/localtime)


I am not saying put an FS into a file, I am saying make the filesystem
effective enough that nobody needs to create things like structured
storage. Given that as a goal, what is needed?

I propose the following:

* inheritance of file bodies
* inheritance of stat data
* a syntax based on rdf for writing to files which have inheritance
(solving this stumbling block was important for me)
* filters, such that "dirname/..tar" generates a tar file when read, and
"dirname/..cat" concatenates for read, and "filename/..filtername" runs
filtername on the file/directory filename.
* overloading directory names so that if they are opened as files they are
files, and if accessed as directories they are directories.

All of these features are valuable in and of themselves. Together they
collectively eliminate all need for structured storage. Jeremy
Allison's needs for emulating W2k are a good test of whether that goal
has been reached, and so I use his needs as one test.

Hans

Richard Gooch writes:
> Hans Reiser writes:
> >
> > Bill Gates makes an interesting argument that his centralized control
> > makes it possible for Microsoft to innovate with a boldness that Linux
> > cannot, because he can order the whole system to change to accomodate a
> > new idea, and it will.
> >
> > I see you as trying to prove him right.
>
> I don't think M$ is a useful comparison to make.
> For M$, innovate == bloat and bad design.
>
> > As for NFS, if it's broken, let's fix it. And if the vendors on the
> > NFS standards committee use their leverage to delay support until
> > their filesystems catch up, then ignore the standards committee or
> > obsolete NFS.
>
> If you've got a problem with NFS, try Coda instead. Perhaps that
> addresses many of your concerns.
>
> > I am sorry Stephen, but you keep harping on the cost of change, I
> > keep harping on the benefit of change, and we will never convince
> > each other. It isn't a logical thing.
>
> Firstly, there are legitimate questions about *where* these changes
> should be made. Perhaps they are best left to a library.
>
> Secondly, we haven't seen a convincining argument as to why putting a
> FS into a file provides a significant benefit.
>
> What are the tangible benefits of the interface changes you're
> proposing? Where does the need come from?
>
> Regards,
>
> Richard....

-
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/