1st, it's not Bill Gates, but someone in his company.
2nd, if he said "Microsoft can commit suicide any time, Linux can't"
would you commit suicide just to prove him wrong ?
Stefan
PS: no, I'm not necessarily opposed to innovation in FS semantics, but
I still haven't come across any compelling example where forks would
provide anything new. Better support for tiny files (like 32bits long)
sounds good to me, but I see no reason to really change the basic
semantics. In any case, all this `fork' stuff has been way too hazy.
Some people tried to propose a rough `user-level forks' implementation
description so as to allow constructive criticism, but I still haven't
seen any serious description of what `kernel-level fork support' is
supposed to look like. You say you're ready for coding, so you must know
what you want to code. What is it going to be ?
If it's just better support for tiny dirs and files (with attribute
inheritance, for example (plus, at worst, a little bit of hint from the
application)), I'm all for it.
-
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/