> Alexander Viro <viro@math.psu.edu> writes:
>
> > On Tue, 20 Jul 1999, Craig Milo Rogers wrote:
> > > operations on the filesystem in questions, you might implement an
> > > auxiliary file that holds persistent inode mappings.
> >
> > ... and face additional shitload of races due to the fact that we have an
> > extra file to modify. And additional slowdown. Great.
>
> Nah, it's not that bad, only as bad as umsdos.
>
> And isn't umsdos lovely, easy to keep running, and a general joy to work
> with? Just think, you could do that to normal FAT, too! ;P
<voice tone="Albert">
It's cool - that way we'll outsuck Microsoft! Just imagine what
we gonna get on UMSDOS. And it's such an ugly, sick, wonderful feature!
Yummm.... *GU-U-U-ULP*
</voice>
Sorry, couldn't resist... Seriously, it would suck worse than NFS
alternative from OSI (if such thing ever existed - *please*, don't share
the details, world is already full of suffering).
ObSuckitude: x86 MMU. 'nuff said.
-
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/