Re: Another article abour Reiser4 on linux.com

[David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>]

Clay Barnes wrote:
> I think the core thing we have to have to win this argument is
> a) A word that isn't *instantly* associated with banned things.

That'd be nice.

> b) The ability to point to the technology to point to the design
> and say look, "Look, it's *impossible* to use this design to put
> binary modules into the kernel."  Even if it's as hard as ATI or
> nVidia modules to put it in, that'll be enough to put up a fight
> against inclusion.

Why?

Why does it have to be impossible to do binary things with the kernel? 
I mean, if Linus hates GPL3 because it limits what people do with the 
kernel...

Besides, you can't make it impossible, you can only make it about as 
hard as it is now.  The license is the issue here.

> The *only* way to win a polical/personal fight
> is to remove any possible objection until resistance looks purely
> stupid and wholly unsubtantiated.

I agree.  That's why we not only need a new name, we also need a 
cut'n'paste argument that just makes this look stupid.

And it has to be short enough that cut'n'paste isn't bad, because if we 
refer people to the FAQ, they won't read it.

> I was just saying to my roomate that I was losing hope for Reiser4
> because I didn't see an end to the politics any time soon.

Yes, it can look pretty hopeless.

> There's only one possible way I see to get in.  You must ask for an
> absolute list of things that are objectionable.  You should then
> ask *before you start work*  about removal of any items that are 
> either a) impossible, or b) illogical.  Once you've gotten the
> official stamp of approval of the (posibly recvised) absolute list
> of objections, you have to do it, completely and exactly.  If they
> agreed that that is everything they find wrong and promised that
> they would include Reiser4 if those issues were resolved, then they
> really *have* to put it in then.

The problem is, they don't.  There have been some fairly definitive 
lists in the past, that were done, but maybe not quite the way they were 
expected.

> The core of all this is that rather than leaving an open-ended task
> that can be expanded at will, they are given limits to how long the
> objections can be spread out.

Problem is, dictators can do whatever they want, even if they said 
something else before.

And that's all assuming you can get them to agree to such a list, and 
agree to abide by it.  They either wouldn't go for it, or they would 
come up with a list that effectively kills Reiser4, turning it into ext3.