Re: Another article abour Reiser4 on linux.com

[David Masover <ninja@slaphack.com>]

Lexington Luthor wrote:
> Bernd Schubert wrote:
>> An alternative might be a reiser4 fuse port. Has some advantages:

> Please please no. The kernel people will use that as an argument for 
> keeping it out of the kernel.

They'll use anything as an argument for keeping it out of the kernel. 
This one is particularly shallow, especially if we still have the kernel 
version, because the performance difference will be significant.

If it isn't, maybe it is time for things like FUSE to take us in the 
direction of microkernels...

> I want reiser4 to be popular enough to 
> make my apps depend on it and not have the users complain about having 
> to use an obscure fs.

Well, an obscure program (FUSE) is probably a lot easier to convince 
users of than an obscure filesystem (reiser4 in-kernel).

> Besides, the only thing about reiser4 that interests me more than XFS or 
> reiserfs is the speed.

That's you.  There are other reasons to like it.

But I agree with you in that I don't think it's worth the resources to 
do a FUSE port, especially when there is (again) NO guarantee that 
anything we do will get us in the kernel, so better to do things that 
will either get us users anyway (like distro inclusion) or do things the 
kernel people specifically ask for.