Re: Let's make ext2fs into lfs (Was: Is anyone using EXT FS)

B. Galliart (bgallia@luc.edu)
Wed, 20 Mar 1996 01:11:22 -0600 (CST)


On Tue, 19 Mar 1996, lilo wrote:
> Well, there's a difference between a suggestion and a claim. My comment
> constituted the former. And, since it's not my code, I don't consider it
> especially arrogant to make the suggestion, just practical. ;) And, yes, I'm
> familiar enough with the history of extfs and ext2fs to understand why they
> were called that. No one is suggesting that anyone has a `claim' to be
> staked--just that ext2 is a native linux filesystem, and probably ought to
> be labeled that way to avoid confusion.

But you are being arrogant, as a Linux user, by renaming ext2fs to lfs.
There is no reason that ext2fs is bound to Linux. It is to everyone's
advantage to make clear that ext2 development is not required to be a
Linux only filesystem. Also, there is nothing that suggests that ext2
will always be absolutely the best thing since sliced bread. Solaris
(with an add-on package) and AIX and probably others will allow you to
grow their fs on the fly (without having to reboot) to use unused disk
space. Also, you can have a fs that spans across multiple disks.
I don't think it would be trival to do add either of these features to
ext2. At some point, what you like to be refer to as "lfs" may be
obsoletted by an ext3fs (you will call it "l2fs"??). I don't see the
advantage to requesting everyone involved in producing packages
manipulated/maintain/documenting changing their reference to ext2fs to
something else to refer to the same exact thing the persent term does.