From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Hans Reiser <reiser@namesys.com>
Subject: Re: I oppose Chris and Jeff's patch to add an unnecessary	additional
 namespace to ReiserFS
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 10:35:39 -0700
Message-ID: <408E99EB.6050203@namesys.com>
References: <1082750045.12989.199.camel@watt.suse.com> <408D3FEE.1030603@namesys.com> <1083000711.30344.44.camel@watt.suse.com> <408D51C4.7010803@namesys.com> <1083006783.30344.102.camel@watt.suse.com> <20040426204037.GA21455@merlin.emma.line.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <reiserfs-list-return-18250-reiserfs=m.gmane.org@namesys.com>
list-help: <mailto:reiserfs-list-help@namesys.com>
list-unsubscribe: <mailto:reiserfs-list-unsubscribe@namesys.com>
list-post: <mailto:reiserfs-list@namesys.com>
Errors-To: flx@namesys.com
In-Reply-To: <20040426204037.GA21455@merlin.emma.line.org>
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: Matthias Andree <ma+rfs@dt.e-technik.uni-dortmund.de>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, reiserfs-list@namesys.com

Matthias Andree wrote:

>
>If so, the whole discussion is about getting out of the frying pan and
>into the fire. The traditional approach will then be standards compliant
>but be out-of-band and outside of the file system name space, the new
>approach will be outside of the standards, requiring application
>developers to produce a Linux and a POSIX version.
>
>Or am I barking up the wrong tree?
>
>  
>
There is always friction between standards and innovation.  One should 
comply with standards unless genuinely innovating.