Re: why umsdos?
Matthew Wilcox (Matthew.Wilcox@genedata.com)
Sun, 8 Nov 1998 22:22:08 +0100
On Sun, Nov 08, 1998 at 03:55:26PM -0500, Anthony Barbachan wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew Wilcox <Matthew.Wilcox@genedata.com>
> To: Horvath Akos <maxx@yuc.sch.bme.hu>
> >> I think, a general ums-like pseudo-ext2-fs over not only umsdos, but all
> >> non unix-compatible fs were very good and useful for the linux community.
> >
> >I disagree. It would be a lot of work for very little gain. Different
> >filesystems differ so much that it would be almost impossible, and
> >even if you did, it would always be a kludge of limited usefulness.
> >Compared to the loop device which we already have with its multiple uses,
> >I really don't see the point.
> >
>
> How about UMSSMB? Or UMS on netware? UMSNTFS? UMS(any other non-unix
> filesystem)? We should not assume that linux users will be using, can use,
> or want to use a unix compatable filesystem.
That's the point. With the right initrd, you can do a loop device / on
_any_ filesystem. No more code needs to go into the kernel.
--
Matthew Wilcox <willy@bofh.ai>
"I decry the current tendency to seek patents on algorithms. There are
better ways to earn a living than to prevent other people from making use of
one's contributions to computer science." -- Donald E. Knuth, TAoCP vol 3
-
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/