191–200 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wouldn’t it be better to keep such files inside a database?
A filesystem is a database.
ReiserFS is a lesson in project naming. When I started in Linux full-time, back in the early 2000s, I was presented with different fs options - the installer did not give me any information on benefits, or on which ones were considered "stable". ext2 was available, but it also had a built-in version number, and I feared that once ext3 eventually rolled over, it might be incompatible. So I chose the fs that came with…
Oh, I don't know, the Linux maintainers who have related to the software rationally and sensibly since Reisers' incarceration?
Silly and lofty "lesson".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The logical successor was supposed to be btrfs, but that project IMHO may never be ready for production use. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Production_Users Facebook deployed it on millions of servers. Is that production enough? Synology NAS devices also use it.
Lots of people seem to turn up their nose at btrfs. Is there a reason for that? Was it perhaps launched before it was really ready and people still remember early versions?
I wonder, how does the principle of not breaking userspace mesh with removing of file systems or drivers? I think some of the published cases where userspace would have been "broken" and Linus got angry were fairly minor, as in you might not even need to fix the software, the user just has to be aware of different defaults. Whereas updating a kernel to a version where the filesystem is not supported will definitely r…
I think, technically, file systems are not part of user-space. All of the code for file-systems lives in the Kernel. In some technical sense, the filesystem is just an implementation detail of the kernel for things like 'read', 'write', and 'mmap'. Since this is an implementation detail, it can be considered 'not part of the public API of the kernel'. Put differently, the promise not to break userspace is aimed at de…
In userspace, I run "mount -t reiserfs ....", and it mounts a filesystem. If the kernel deletes the reiserfs code, the userspace mount command / kernel 'mount' syscall will fail.
That seems like a very clear userspace thing that breaks.
Is there a reason that the mount syscall no longer accepting a previously valid argument isn't a userspace breaking change?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that's also why I stopped using it. Why didn't they just fork it and change the name? I don't get it. FWIW at some point it also had quite severe stability issues. I'm sure those were solved but that might have contributed to the fact why there was no effort to fork it but instead people went with ZFS, XFS and eventually ext4
Does superficial moralism and applying guilt by association somehow improve your life?
"WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE" https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75 I was surprised to see that Linux has in fact removed other filesystems in the past (and I had to look up the word "senescent"). So the real news to me here is that a somewhat "major" break in userspace is being considered. Sure, ReiserFS might not be getting a lot of new installs, but the fact that people have submitted fixes to it within the past few y…
A filesystem in the kernel isn't userspace.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah that's also why I stopped using it. Why didn't they just fork it and change the name? I don't get it. FWIW at some point it also had quite severe stability issues. I'm sure those were solved but that might have contributed to the fact why there was no effort to fork it but instead people went with ZFS, XFS and eventually ext4
Does superficial moralism and applying guilt by association somehow improve your life?
What other filesystems have checksums for data? Last time I looked, after a silent SSD failure that I only noticed because some .so files were affected, the only options were btrfs and reiserfs (I think ZFS required a custom kernel at that time). The incident was really eye-opening in how fragile was my data: if .so files were not affected, I would have continued to use the system and erroneous data would silently be…
Git? Since I put pretty much everything into Git, it’s like another filesystem overlayed on my normal filesystem.
I, for one, don't understand why can't they give Hans a computer and an internet connection and allow him to work on some open-source project.
There are interesting links to slavery and workhouses by allowing people to do actual labor from prison. There is pretty much no way to allow people to 'volunteer' to do this kind of work without giving someone an incentive to get as many people into prison and using it as a giant slave work camp.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does superficial moralism and applying guilt by association somehow improve your life?
There is no need to over-analyze this. It's perfectly legitimate to feel that it's weird to use an FS created by someone who murdered his wife, or otherwise violated or opposed norms that you hold important. For instance, I certainly wouldn't use something called HitlerOS as my daily driver (or at all), no matter how good it was, because the name itself makes me uncomfortable.