From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>
Subject: Re: the " 'official' point of view" expressed by kernelnewbies.org
 regarding reiser4 inclusion
Date: Tue, 01 Aug 2006 11:57:10 -0500
Message-ID: <44CF87E6.1050004@slaphack.com>
References: <200608011428.k71ESIuv007094@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <linux-kernel-owner+glk-linux-kernel-3=40m.gmane.org-S1751283AbWHAQ5Q@vger.kernel.org>
In-Reply-To: <200608011428.k71ESIuv007094@laptop13.inf.utfsm.cl>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-Id: <reiserfs-devel.vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
To: "Horst H. von Brand" <vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl>
Cc: Bernd Schubert <bernd-schubert@gmx.de>, reiserfs-list@namesys.com, Jan-Benedict Glaw <jbglaw@lug-owl.de>, Clay Barnes <clay.barnes@gmail.com>, Rudy Zijlstra <rudy@edsons.demon.nl>, Adrian Ulrich <reiser4@blinkenlights.ch>, ipso@snappymail.ca, reiser@namesys.com, lkml@lpbproductions.com, jeff@garzik.org, tytso@mit.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

Horst H. von Brand wrote:
> Bernd Schubert <bernd-schubert@gmx.de> wrote:

>> While filesystem speed is nice, it also would be great if reiser4.x would be 
>> very robust against any kind of hardware failures.
> 
> Can't have both.

Why not?  I mean, other than TANSTAAFL, is there a technical reason for 
them being mutually exclusive?  I suspect it's more "we haven't found a 
way yet..."