You say it's time for file semantics to change. Why? What will
be the benefit to users or to programmers from your proposed
changes? (Not meaning to be snide, but when I was in OS design
at IBM, one of my friends used to say, "If a change is transparent
to the user, why are we making it in the first place?" Whether
the benefit to users is direct, as in a new feature, or indirect, as
in making it easier for programmers to write better software,
there should be some tangible benefit.)
I'm not saying I disagree with your proposed changes, or your
analysis of the benefits and impact, etc. All I'm trying to do is
focus the discussion on the purpose and benefits of what you
and others here want to do. This is such a serious change to
Linux, and with such far-reaching ramifications (at least in
some incarnations), that I think this is a reasonable thing to
talk about.
I'm also not suggesting that you be "forced" to follow the
desires of any one person, including myself, or even the
group. But I think it would be a good thing for the Linux
community if we all understood the changes in more detail.
In conversations here and in private e-mail, I'm seeing a lot
of people question the need for this change, as well as what
it will mean. And I've seen no one try to answer the long list
of questions I asked recently in the mailing list. If you don't
like my questions, no problem, ignore them, and address
the issues your own way. My questions were meant solely
as a way to encourage people to talk above the level of bits
and bytes, and to focus us all on the bigger picture.
If the consensus here is that this kind of change should be
made without any discussion of user benefits or impact to the
system, then by all means, tell me, and I'll shut up. But judging
by the number of people raising similar questions in the mailing
list, as well as in private e-mail, I think people want more details
and discussion, not less.
Lou
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@ceic.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Jun 1999 14:14:50 +0000 (/etc/localtime)
Subject: 20 years without semantic innovation is enough
My point though is that the file system semantics have been static for
20 years. It is time for them to change. When they change NFS will
break, at least it will if the changes are substantive. For this
reason, to argue that NFS cannot be broken is to argue that there should
be no semantic innovation for file systems. That make the argument
invalid in my eyes. NFS must be broken.
Hans
-
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/