> If I have to recompile a kernel because a CAD app needs it, damn!
> I move for the separation of the engine from the radio. And certainly from
> the tuning dial.
> cheers,
> Rares
I think that was my whole point. The kernel should encapsulate only the most
generic of things. Trying to respond to what someone else (e.g. the Nasty
Trash file system) is doing will only lead to dead end solutions. NT isn't
getting streams because they are good engineering. It's getting them because
they are just proprietary enough to make life hard for other people. They may
or may not as a side effect do a good job. They sure don't seem very generic,
though.
Its untrue that file system semantics have been unchanged for 20 years. What
about the old MacDonnell-Douglas system (I forget the name right now) where
the whole file system was a database. Real neat for something that wanted a
database, and real slow for everything else. The only place I can think of
where rich file systems have worked well is using dedicated partitions for
RDMSs, but these only work well when used as an adjunct to a normal file
system, not a replacement. We aren't living in a world of simple hierarchical
files because nothing else has been tried, but because nothing else has stood
the test of time.
If I believed this would never change I would basically be believing in a
world without progress. However, history shows that when you change the file
system you have a very high chance of going up a blind alley. Take care. Be
flexible. Be generic.
Steve
-
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/