From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Masover Subject: Re: Reiser4 and ACLs Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:21:52 -0500 Message-ID: <430131A0.4060905@slaphack.com> References: <42FEC9F1.9040709@perkel.com> <17151.17921.996376.693013@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <87k6in5dri.fsf@evinrude.uhoreg.ca> <17152.63727.435377.223362@thebsh.namesys.com> <1124138041.11626.4.camel@localhost> <17152.65201.525419.283987@gargle.gargle.HOWL> <43010157.1030107@perkel.com> <43012440.8020804@slaphack.com> <43012598.7080207@perkel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed" To: michael chang Cc: Marc Perkel , reiserfs-list@namesys.com michael chang wrote: > On 8/15/05, Marc Perkel wrote: > >>It seems to me that getting in the Kernel is the most important thing. > > > This is because nothing else can happen because no one will know it > exists. Everything else will happen *as soon as* Reiser4 gets in. > Otherwise, it's practically useless. > > >>Then getting it compatible with existing standards. Then you build up > > > But then you're basically rewriting ext2 or 3. There's no point in that. > > >>the user based (addicts) and then you add the innovative stuff. > > > You do this first, because it's what sets you appart. Otherwise, > people won't convert away from EXT2/3. Priorities first. > > >>Otherwise people are going to use Ext3 because it has ACLs and Reiser4 >>doesn't. That's where I'm at. If it doesn't do ACLs it doesn't work. I >>need acls. > > > So why fix something that isn't broken? Just because one person who > uses ACLs doesn't use Reiser4 right away doesn't mean he won't use it > later. Compare the number of people who use Ubuntu Linux (who won't > support Reiser4 until it's vanilla) and other Vanilla kernels, to the > number of ACL users. The numbers matter. > > >>The way I see it - and I may well be missing something - s that the >>current API is just a way of talking to the security layer. So why not >>support multiple ways to talk to it? > > > There is nothing wrong with this idea. It's just time consuming. > It's not done, yet (for Reiser4). If someone is willing to pay the > time/sweat or the money to get it done, it will be done. Otherwise, > it won't. Simple as that. And, just to clarify, people are willing to pay the money for the time/sweat that it takes to implement the nice, clean, new ways of doing things like ACLs and xattrs. I don't think anyone's willing to spend money (yet) to get the old things working -- no point. I'm betting that at some point, there's going to be a question of the amount of time it'd take to rewrite an existing project vs. adding the xattrs compatibility layer, and that layer will be easier to do, because someone has a rediculously un-modular system. But not soon, and not before it's in the vanilla kernel. Completely offtopic, inane comment follows: "Vanilla" should really be called "Essence of Madagascar Orchid", or some such. It is, in fact, one of the most exotic tastes on the planet. Read up at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanilla_%28orchid%29 So, the Vanilla kernel should never be seen as something boring ;)