From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Eric Van Hensbergen Subject: Re: reiser4 plugins Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:57:19 -0500 Message-ID: References: <200506290509.j5T595I6010576@laptop11.inf.utfsm.cl> <20050629135820.GJ11013@nysv.org> <20050629205636.GN16867@khan.acc.umu.se> <20050630100119.GO11013@nysv.org> Reply-To: Eric Van Hensbergen Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20050630100119.GO11013@nysv.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Markus_T=F6rnqvist?= Cc: Douglas McNaught , Horst von Brand , Hubert Chan , Kyle Moffett , David Masover , Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, Lincoln Dale , Gregory Maxwell , Hans Reiser , Jeff Garzik , Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, ReiserFS List On 6/30/05, Markus T=F6rnqvist wrote: >=20 > >instead of trying to get a monstrosity (albeit a very cool one, > >conceptually) into the kernel. Sure, it could be made to work, > >but not without dropping our Unixness. And if we do, we should > >start by looking at Plan 9 =3D) >=20 > What's wrong with "dropping our Unixness" if it means taking > an extra step toward Plan 9? >=20 > Why is this a bad idea? >=20 It's not. For those who don't already know about it: check out the v9fs project (http://v9fs.sf.net) - we're taking steps of moving the Linux kernel towards Plan 9 while trying to preserve Unix semantics where they make sense. -eric