Re: The argument for fs assistance in handling archives

From: Hans Reiser
Date: Thu Sep 02 2004 - 03:59:54 EST

Linus Torvalds wrote:

But _my_ point is, no user program is going to take _advantage_ of

anything that only one filesystem on one system offers.

Apple does not have this problem....

and yes, the apps will take advantage of it, which is different from depending on it. If you use the wrong fs you will lose some of the features of the app.

For 30 years nothing much has happened in Unix filesystem semantics because of sheer cowardice (excepting Clearcase, which priced itself into a niche market). It is 25 years past time for someone to change things. That someone will have first mover advantage, and the more little semantic features possessed the more lure there will be to use it which will increase market share which will lure more apps into depending on it and in a few years the other filesystems will (deservedly) have only a small market share because the apps won't all work on them.

Besides, there are enhancements which are simply compelling. You can write a dramatically better performance version control system with a much simpler design if the FS is atomic. Our transaction manager first draft was written by a version control guy, and he would probably be happy to tell you how lack of atomicity other than rename makes version control software design hideous.

We have the performance lead. By next year we will be stable enough for mission critical servers, and then we start the serious semantic enhancements.

If you don't embrace progress, then you doom Linux to following behind, because the guys at Apple are pretty aggressive now that Jobs is back, and they WILL change the semantics, and they will do so in compelling ways, and Linux will be reduced to aping them when it should be leading them.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at