johnrobertbanks
2007-04-09T04:17:02Z

REISER4 FOR INCLUSION IN THE LINUX KERNEL.

Dave Lynch takes a reasoned approach to REISER4.

Dave Lynch wrote:
>
> Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >
> > If the compelling reason is that it needs a test, I'd say its not ready.
> >
>
> Can you please elaborate ? I am not sure I understand what you are
> arguing ?

Jeff Garzik is "saying" that he wants REISER4 to stay out of the main
kernel, for reasons he is not willing to tell you.

> Despite his substantially less than polite rhetoric, I have read
> Hans's post from months if not years ago.
>
> Aside from the pissing contests - which where not entirely one
> sided,

On the basis of what I have seen here,... Hans Reiser was probably an
angel.

> I actually beleive that Hans made a reasonable case that
> Reiser4 had gone about as far as it could reasonably go with regard
> to testing, robustness, ... without the broader base of use that
> even an experimental filesystem in distribution tree would get.

Of course, this is an entirely reasonable request of Reiser's.
One meet with an array of unreasonable actions, but mainly STALLING
which has led to REISER4 never becoming part of the main kernel.

It has also lead to many false claims about REISER4. Claims that are
never backed up with solid statistics, but used to keep REISER4 out of
the kernel and tar its reputation.

> I for one would at least play with it if it were in the distribution
> tree.

I AM SURE THERE ARE A HUGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO WOULD GIVE IT A TRY.

> As far as I could tell Hans pretty much everything else that
> was demanded. Hans eventually caved and provided - albeit with much
> pissing and moaning, and holy than thou rhetoric.

It was not his pissing and moaning, etc,... these were just excuses to
keep REISER4 from succeeding. The truth is, that any excuse would do.

The real reasons are financial and backed by big money (sometimes, big
egos).

> The argument that anything that needs testing can't get into the
> distribution tree's is specious. There is alot of poorly tested crap in
> the distribution trees.

Yes, the argument that anything that needs testing can't get in is
indeed stupid.

But stupid things often work. Is REISER4 in the kernel? Is REISER4 a
success?

> But separately, there is the issue of scale. Namesys claims that
> they have no currently know bugs, faults ... - with their base of
> internal and external users.
>
> I would fully expect new failures to crop up with any filesystem,
> driver, ... moving up an order of magnitude in users.
>
> Are you going to subject all filesystems and drivers to the same
> high standards you are placing on Reiser4 ? If so then we need to strip
> the distribution tree now.

No. Only those things that threaten big money.

> I am not looking to defend Hans - he is likely to be in jail and no
> longer a factor for a long time. Nor am I looking to make or support
> claims for Reiser4.

Why not defend Hans? He is in jail on what appear to be trumped-up
charges, just like the trumped-up complainants about his filesystem.

> But I am asking - why we can not get past the bad blood, rhetoric,
> and zealotry -which to my eyes has not been all one sided.

Money talks, BS walks. Reiser4 is a little guy. You should play in my
league.

> I am NOT looking for a technical explanation of all the relative
> merits and demerits of Reiser4.
>
> I do not care for arguments about whether it compresses 0's well, or
> that tail combining is a bad thing. They may have merit, but there is
> not a filesystem that is going to be all things to all people.

Yeap.

> Whether Reiser4 is a small niche filesystem or a significant general
> use one, is a decision that should be reached by its performance
> in practice, not it rhetoric. Regardless, even as a niche filesystem,
> I beleive at this point it merits inclusion.

Yeap. REISER4 merits inclusion.

John.
--

johnrobertbanks@fastmail.fm

--
http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service