> 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
Could we avoid metaphysics?
> 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.
Not in the kernel that runs here. Period. You break it, your patch is not
applied on my boxen. If anything like that will make its way into the main
tree (e.g. you'll tie Linus and give him one-way trip) be bloody sure that
code split *will* follow. If reiserfs will require kernel changes that
break NFS (I hope it will not) - though luck for reiserfs. Deal with it.
NFS sucks in many, many ways. So does SMTP. So does DNS. So does IP.
Unfortunately dropping any of them is not an option, unless you are
willing to move into the brave new world where you can't interoperate with
anything except the stuff written by vendor foo. We've been there. SNA
lost. And one personal note - you've made everything to ensure that I'll
treat any code from you as potentially maliciuos. Double audit and all
such. Somehow I suspect that I'm not alone in that. After the things that
were said I simply don't trust you.
-
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/