Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab <stroetmann@ontolab.com>]

Hello Alli,:
> Hello,
> I don't know the background of OntoLabs
OntoLab. There can only be one. ;)
>  and even when I googled and
> read something in teh archives, I haven't learned much. I would like
> to ask a few questions.
> 1. @Christian: have you done any actual development
I did a further development, which is based on R4 but transforms it to 
something different/new. Besides some other issue this new storage 
system was given a new name, a process which is common in the open 
source area (examples can be given on request).
>  or have you just
> renamed the filesystem, created a webpage with feature highlight and
> gave no credit to original developers except for NOT explicitly
> renaming the files you are mirroring? In the text there is no mention
> of Reiser4 even though it in fact is Reiser4. Why?
>   
See above. And it was discussed in mailing-lists to rename it due to a 
special issue around a person, which let all main sponsors to jump of 
the bandwagon. In this respect the new name was also meant to restore 
again the acceptance for the foundational filesystem. 
<http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/acceptance.html>
> 2. @Christian: What did you have in mind when you set the page up?
>   
See above. And at that time there was no project page for R4. As I 
mentioned also this happened before the source code was archieved at 
kernel.org.
> What features were you going to work on if Edward cooperated with you
>   
It's over. I only take part in the discussion, because I would like 
other people to know my motivations.
> (as you say he refused to; I don't know the history so please excuse
> me everybody)?
In another thread I publicated the e-mail, which was sent by me to the 
maintainer. I got no answer until today. Than Jason asked for the actual 
maintainer and mentioned that he also send an e-mail. Later we found out 
that a maintainer for R4 really exists.
>  For instance there are three things I'm missing in
> reiser4: defragmentation tool, resize tool, xattrs. I haven't learned
> from the text what YOU wanted to work on.
>   
Yes, I described it only so far, that the open source community has no 
problems with patents by the large companies. The details of my work are 
described between the lines. I'm sorry for not giving all details or a 
better description, but there are some really bad guys in th IT-circus 
running around.
> 3. Everybody else: Could you please point me somewhere I can read
> about this whole history?
The history of R4 or this special thread?
<http://www.dict.cc/englisch-deutsch/suggestion.html>
>  I believe that Edward and others have good
> reasons to act the way they do (and I think they have the full right
> to), but I would really like to read on this.
>   
No, I have the opinion that R4 is a GPL'ed code and that the open source 
development community, especially around Linux, has established some 
other kinds of "rules" to work together. One of this rule is to answer 
questions or to say her/his opinion directly to someone else. But this 
is in fact one of the points in discussion too.
> Hope I didn't offended anybody and BTW it would actually help to have
> a stable hosting for wiki/trac or something that like system and a
> centralized place for the tools, it's manuals, some howtos, roadmap,
> todo and this kind of stuff. kernel.org is not exactly the best place
> for this AFAIK. Just my two cents.
>   
Yes, that is exactly the point. And there are so many other unsolved items.
Last but not least I do repeat a question a nice person asked me: How 
want one developer alone manage the code? (It doesn't matter if there 
are in reality 5 or 10 developers.)
> al-Quaknaa
>
>
>   
Sincerely
Christian *:o)