reiser4 inclusion?

reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Kujau]

With still no project page in sight, I find it hard to track[0] the 
progress of the work being towards an inclusion of reiser4 into 
mainline. Unable to help out with real code, I look at the 
reiser4-for-2.6.29 diffstat (sans the fs/reiser4 parts!) and see:

 Documentation/Changes                         |   12 
 Documentation/filesystems/reiser4.txt         |   75 
 fs/Kconfig                                    |    1 
 fs/Makefile                                   |    1 
 fs/buffer.c                                   |    9 
 fs/fs-writeback.c                             |    5 
 include/linux/fs.h                            |    3 
 include/linux/mm.h                            |    2 
 mm/filemap.c                                  |    4 
 mm/page-writeback.c                           |   48 

So, with 4 of them being "just" documentation and build magic, I take 
it that we're 6 files and less than 100 lines of code away from at least 
putting this file system into the new staging/ tree perhaps?

Thoughts?

Thanks,
Christian.

[0] http://tinyurl.com/dexfq9
-- 
An autographed picture of Bruce Schneier is all you need to securely wipe any
hard-drive.

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Christian;
You wrote:
> With still no project page in sight,
Under the label of my company and taking the full risk of losing 
reputation, in contrast to other well known Linux distributions and 
former supporters of R....4 fs which (partly) jumped off the train, I 
made the following offers in the past:
1. Support the R4 fs under the name R4.
2. Set up a project page or, on the wish of the developement community, 
a wiki.
3. Under an other name, which I've choosen and I'm not allowed to name 
in this mailinglist, I've have even developed another kind of file system.

The results were:
To 1.: No echo.
To 2.: No replay.
To 3.: I got a kindly "Go away" advice.
And to give it the rest: I do have alternatives and if some persons 
think, that they can gain something by their destructive attitude, than 
I have to say: Okay, have a nice day.

Being constructive, I think we need a new projcet management, maybe a 
new maintainer, or some bytes for archiving the digital waste.
>  I find it hard to track[0] the 
> progress of the work being towards an inclusion of reiser4 into 
> mainline. Unable to help out with real code, I look at the 
> reiser4-for-2.6.29 diffstat (sans the fs/reiser4 parts!) and see:
>
>  Documentation/Changes                         |   12 
>  Documentation/filesystems/reiser4.txt         |   75 
>  fs/Kconfig                                    |    1 
>  fs/Makefile                                   |    1 
>  fs/buffer.c                                   |    9 
>  fs/fs-writeback.c                             |    5 
>  include/linux/fs.h                            |    3 
>  include/linux/mm.h                            |    2 
>  mm/filemap.c                                  |    4 
>  mm/page-writeback.c                           |   48 
>
> So, with 4 of them being "just" documentation and build magic, I take 
> it that we're 6 files and less than 100 lines of code away from at least 
> putting this file system into the new staging/ tree perhaps?
>
> Thoughts?
>   
I found it more and more jokeless, what is going on around this fs.
Btw.: I can't and I won't follow the claims and resitances made by Al 
Viro and other hard core coders against R4 and HFS+, especially the 
arguments in the hardlink subject.
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>
> [0] http://tinyurl.com/dexfq9
>   
Sincerely
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Edward Shishkin]

Please,
don't flood in this mailing list.
Go away!

Edward.

Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
> Dear Christian;
> You wrote:
>> With still no project page in sight,
> Under the label of my company and taking the full risk of losing
> reputation, in contrast to other well known Linux distributions and
> former supporters of R....4 fs which (partly) jumped off the train, I
> made the following offers in the past:
> 1. Support the R4 fs under the name R4.
> 2. Set up a project page or, on the wish of the developement
> community, a wiki.
> 3. Under an other name, which I've choosen and I'm not allowed to name
> in this mailinglist, I've have even developed another kind of file
> system.
>
> The results were:
> To 1.: No echo.
> To 2.: No replay.
> To 3.: I got a kindly "Go away" advice.
> And to give it the rest: I do have alternatives and if some persons
> think, that they can gain something by their destructive attitude,
> than I have to say: Okay, have a nice day.
>
> Being constructive, I think we need a new projcet management, maybe a
> new maintainer, or some bytes for archiving the digital waste.
>>  I find it hard to track[0] the progress of the work being towards an
>> inclusion of reiser4 into mainline. Unable to help out with real
>> code, I look at the reiser4-for-2.6.29 diffstat (sans the fs/reiser4
>> parts!) and see:
>>
>>  Documentation/Changes                         |   12
>>  Documentation/filesystems/reiser4.txt         |   75
>>  fs/Kconfig                                    |    1
>>  fs/Makefile                                   |    1
>>  fs/buffer.c                                   |    9
>>  fs/fs-writeback.c                             |    5
>>  include/linux/fs.h                            |    3
>>  include/linux/mm.h                            |    2
>>  mm/filemap.c                                  |    4
>>  mm/page-writeback.c                           |   48
>> So, with 4 of them being "just" documentation and build magic, I take
>> it that we're 6 files and less than 100 lines of code away from at
>> least putting this file system into the new staging/ tree perhaps?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>   
> I found it more and more jokeless, what is going on around this fs.
> Btw.: I can't and I won't follow the claims and resitances made by Al
> Viro and other hard core coders against R4 and HFS+, especially the
> arguments in the hardlink subject.
>> Thanks,
>> Christian.
>>
>> [0] http://tinyurl.com/dexfq9
>>   
> Sincerely
> Christian *<:o)
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
> reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Bron Gondwana]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 02:51:11PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
> Please,
> don't flood in this mailing list.
> Go away!
 
Gosh - was it off topic or something?  Seems to me that it's
a bit strange to be unfriendly with other people who want to
see your code included in mainstream.

Bron ( ok, so I don't know all the underlying politics, but
       seeing something like this doesn't encourage me to
       think there's going to be a healthy community around
       to maintain the filesystem in the long term )

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Alexander Lyamin]

Why steal instead of offering hand in development ?


On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 02:51:11PM +0200, Edward Shishkin wrote:
>> Please,
>> don't flood in this mailing list.
>> Go away!
>
> Gosh - was it off topic or something?  Seems to me that it's
> a bit strange to be unfriendly with other people who want to
> see your code included in mainstream.
>
> Bron ( ok, so I don't know all the underlying politics, but
>       seeing something like this doesn't encourage me to
>       think there's going to be a healthy community around
>       to maintain the filesystem in the long term )
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>



-- 
connecting the dots
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Mat]

Alexander Lyamin <flx <at> Msu.ru> writes:

> 
> Why steal instead of offering hand in development ?

from what I understood he was trying to use and enhance it under another name in
the beginning ("steal") 

but then also offered to partake in development under its original name
(Reiser4) - why the refusal ?

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Bron Gondwana]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 03:31:29PM +0400, Alexander Lyamin wrote:
> Why steal instead of offering hand in development ?

Stealing GPL code is pretty hard, last time I checked.

As for forking development, it usually happens because
someone who wants to be involved feels they have been
rebuffed by the core development team.

Bron.

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Dushan Tcholich]

May I see some of your patches that enhanced R4?
Link? In m-l archives there are none.
Any ideas/problems/solutions discussed?

Thanks
Dushan

On 4/19/09, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 03:31:29PM +0400, Alexander Lyamin wrote:
>> Why steal instead of offering hand in development ?
>
> Stealing GPL code is pretty hard, last time I checked.
>
> As for forking development, it usually happens because
> someone who wants to be involved feels they have been
> rebuffed by the core development team.
>
> Bron.
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Bron Gondwana]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 02:09:57PM +0200, Dushan Tcholich wrote:
> May I see some of your patches that enhanced R4?
> Link? In m-l archives there are none.
> Any ideas/problems/solutions discussed?

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a developers only mailing
list where concerned users weren't welcome.  My mistake.

Bron.

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Alexander Lyamin]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:

> Sorry, I didn't realise it was a developers only mailing
> list where concerned users weren't welcome.  My mistake.

reiserfs-devel <reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org>
fine latin print.

please state your "concerns" in a constructive manner.
have a bug report ?
a feature request ?


-- 
connecting the dots
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Bron Gondwana]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:45:49PM +0400, Alexander Lyamin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> > Sorry, I didn't realise it was a developers only mailing
> > list where concerned users weren't welcome.  My mistake.
> 
> reiserfs-devel <reiserfs-devel@vger.kernel.org>
> fine latin print.
> 
> please state your "concerns" in a constructive manner.

(not a good argument, but: points up thread)

> have a bug report ?

Yes, reiser4 is not in mainline.

Thanks,

Bron.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Alexander Lyamin]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:45:49PM +0400, Alexander Lyamin wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:

>> have a bug report ?
>
> Yes, reiser4 is not in mainline.
is it reproducible ? ;)

-- 
connecting the dots

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Bron Gondwana]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 05:32:18PM +0400, Alexander Lyamin wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 5:00 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 04:45:49PM +0400, Alexander Lyamin wrote:
> >> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 4:32 PM, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> 
> >> have a bug report ?
> >
> > Yes, reiser4 is not in mainline.
> is it reproducible ? ;)

brong@launde:/extra/src/git/linux-2.6$ git pull                                  
[...]
From git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux-2.6
[...]
brong@launde:/extra/src/git/linux-2.6$ find . -name '*reiser4*'
brong@launde:/extra/src/git/linux-2.6$ 

Yes ;)

Bron.

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Dushan Tcholich]

Sorry Bron, the question was directed to Christian Stroetmann, but as
I replied from mobile phone, I must've misquoted.
I'm sorry if I accidentaly offended you.
As for why there was somewhat harsh response to Christian Stroetmann,
google for ontolabs and look into archives for his previous posts.

With hope that I haven't offended you
Dushan

On 4/19/09, Bron Gondwana <brong@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 02:09:57PM +0200, Dushan Tcholich wrote:
>> May I see some of your patches that enhanced R4?
>> Link? In m-l archives there are none.
>> Any ideas/problems/solutions discussed?
>
> Sorry, I didn't realise it was a developers only mailing
> list where concerned users weren't welcome.  My mistake.
>
> Bron.
>

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Bron Gondwana]

On Sun, Apr 19, 2009 at 03:08:19PM +0200, Dushan Tcholich wrote:
> Sorry Bron, the question was directed to Christian Stroetmann, but as
> I replied from mobile phone, I must've misquoted.
> I'm sorry if I accidentaly offended you.
> As for why there was somewhat harsh response to Christian Stroetmann,
> google for ontolabs and look into archives for his previous posts.

Yeah - I see some language issues and someone with some strange ideas,
but I see wanting to get a working filesystem based on reiser4's
ideas accepted into the kernel at first glance - not "stealing".

(I reject the idea that it's stealing to want to build something
GPLed on top of something else GPLed anyway.  Embrace your forks,
it means someone else thinks you're doing good stuff)

Bron ( I'm not offended at you, just sad that reiser4 has stagnated
       for so long and with so much angst )

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Jason Todd Slack-Moehrle]

Edward,

> Please,
> don't flood in this mailing list.
> Go away!

You are totally out of line here.

First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post

Second, Christian, like all others, have a right to post here. You may  
not agree with his posts (or what he is doing with OntoFS), but that  
does not give you the right to tell him to go away.

Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it  
has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically  
somewhat dead.

If there was more co-operation and less fighting, perhaps forking  
would not need to be an issue, but with your head up your ass no  
progress gets made, no leaps forward, nada, zip, zilch.

-Jason

> Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
>> Dear Christian;
>> You wrote:
>>> With still no project page in sight,
>> Under the label of my company and taking the full risk of losing
>> reputation, in contrast to other well known Linux distributions and
>> former supporters of R....4 fs which (partly) jumped off the train, I
>> made the following offers in the past:
>> 1. Support the R4 fs under the name R4.
>> 2. Set up a project page or, on the wish of the developement
>> community, a wiki.
>> 3. Under an other name, which I've choosen and I'm not allowed to  
>> name
>> in this mailinglist, I've have even developed another kind of file
>> system.
>>
>> The results were:
>> To 1.: No echo.
>> To 2.: No replay.
>> To 3.: I got a kindly "Go away" advice.
>> And to give it the rest: I do have alternatives and if some persons
>> think, that they can gain something by their destructive attitude,
>> than I have to say: Okay, have a nice day.
>>
>> Being constructive, I think we need a new projcet management, maybe a
>> new maintainer, or some bytes for archiving the digital waste.
>>> I find it hard to track[0] the progress of the work being towards an
>>> inclusion of reiser4 into mainline. Unable to help out with real
>>> code, I look at the reiser4-for-2.6.29 diffstat (sans the fs/reiser4
>>> parts!) and see:
>>>
>>> Documentation/Changes                         |   12
>>> Documentation/filesystems/reiser4.txt         |   75
>>> fs/Kconfig                                    |    1
>>> fs/Makefile                                   |    1
>>> fs/buffer.c                                   |    9
>>> fs/fs-writeback.c                             |    5
>>> include/linux/fs.h                            |    3
>>> include/linux/mm.h                            |    2
>>> mm/filemap.c                                  |    4
>>> mm/page-writeback.c                           |   48
>>> So, with 4 of them being "just" documentation and build magic, I  
>>> take
>>> it that we're 6 files and less than 100 lines of code away from at
>>> least putting this file system into the new staging/ tree perhaps?
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>> I found it more and more jokeless, what is going on around this fs.
>> Btw.: I can't and I won't follow the claims and resitances made by Al
>> Viro and other hard core coders against R4 and HFS+, especially the
>> arguments in the hardlink subject.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Christian.
>>>
>>> [0] http://tinyurl.com/dexfq9
>>>
>> Sincerely
>> Christian *<:o)
>> -- 
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>> reiserfs-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs- 
> devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag 25 April 2009, Jason Todd Slack-Moehrle wrote:
> Edward,
>
> > Please,
> > don't flood in this mailing list.
> > Go away!
>
> You are totally out of line here.
>
> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post

it is pretty much his mailing list.

>
> Second, Christian, like all others, have a right to post here. You may
> not agree with his posts (or what he is doing with OntoFS), but that
> does not give you the right to tell him to go away.

yes, it does. Just look at the archives.

>
> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
> somewhat dead.

reiserfs is in  maintenance mode - there aren't much changes. In fact, less 
changes is a good thing.

Edward is also pretty much the last person working on reiser4. You are 
attacking him, but I don't see patches from you. Gives someone something to 
think about.

>
> If there was more co-operation and less fighting, perhaps forking
> would not need to be an issue, but with your head up your ass no
> progress gets made, no leaps forward, nada, zip, zilch.
>
> -Jason

look at the archives. Edward has good reasons to feel ripped of. 
Maybe it is all a big miscommunication. But that isn't solved when ontolabs 
guys agressively advertise for themselves.

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Jason Todd Slack-Moehrle]

Volker,

>> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
>
> it is pretty much his mailing list.

Just because he is the "maintainer".

Am I wrong, but the community owns the code, not Edward.

I mean, I could host a reiser list on my mail server.

>> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
>> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
>> somewhat dead.
>
> reiserfs is in  maintenance mode - there aren't much changes. In  
> fact, less
> changes is a good thing.

maintenance mode = stagnant, no?

>  Edward is also pretty much the last person working on reiser4. You  
> are
> attacking him, but I don't see patches from you. Gives someone  
> something to
> think about.

Right because he has slammed heads with everyone that was willing to  
help him. I was willing and when I tried talking with him he blew me  
off. So I forked. OntoLab too.

Edward has lost the meaning of an open source community effort. It  
isn't a one man show and it isn't blowing people off and it isn't  
refusing to accept involvement and it isn't only accepting the help  
you *want* versus what someone *offers*

> look at the archives. Edward has good reasons to feel ripped of.
> Maybe it is all a big miscommunication. But that isn't solved when  
> ontolabs
> guys agressively advertise for themselves.

But what else is there when a snails pace is being achieved otherwise?

Please realize that my tone is that of trying to band together and not  
break apart. I want to see progress, I am willing to put in my time  
and energy, but there is no path or goals or anything....what is one  
supposed to think or do?

I think that it is time to get back in the game.

-Jason

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Jason,
> Volker,
>
>>> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
>>
>> it is pretty much his mailing list.
>
> Just because he is the "maintainer".
>
> Am I wrong, but the community owns the code, not Edward.
I have had the same impression in the past, but now I have learned 
something new.
>
> I mean, I could host a reiser list on my mail server.
I can do it too ;)
>
>>> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
>>> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
>>> somewhat dead.
>>
>> reiserfs is in  maintenance mode - there aren't much changes. In 
>> fact, less
>> changes is a good thing.
>
> maintenance mode = stagnant, no?
>
>>  Edward is also pretty much the last person working on reiser4. You are
>> attacking him, but I don't see patches from you. Gives someone 
>> something to
>> think about.
>
> Right because he has slammed heads with everyone that was willing to 
> help him. I was willing and when I tried talking with him he blew me 
> off. So I forked. OntoLab too.
Yes, that's exactly the point.
>
> Edward has lost the meaning of an open source community effort. It 
> isn't a one man show and it isn't blowing people off and it isn't 
> refusing to accept involvement and it isn't only accepting the help 
> you *want* versus what someone *offers*
Yes, that's exactly the point again.
>
>> look at the archives. Edward has good reasons to feel ripped of.
>> Maybe it is all a big miscommunication. But that isn't solved when 
>> ontolabs
>> guys agressively advertise for themselves.
>
> But what else is there when a snails pace is being achieved otherwise?
>
> Please realize that my tone is that of trying to band together and not 
> break apart. I want to see progress, I am willing to put in my time 
> and energy, but there is no path or goals or anything....what is one 
> supposed to think or do?
>
> I think that it is time to get back in the game.
Yes, we can :)
>
> -Jason
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Best wishes
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag 25 April 2009, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
> Jason,
>
> > Volker,
> >
> >>> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
> >>
> >> it is pretty much his mailing list.
> >
> > Just because he is the "maintainer".
> >
> > Am I wrong, but the community owns the code, not Edward.
>
> I have had the same impression in the past, but now I have learned
> something new.
>

people who write the code own the code. How many reiserfs or reiser4 related 
patches from you two got into the kernel in the last... lets say 4 years?

> > I mean, I could host a reiser list on my mail server.
>
> I can do it too ;)

if you want to - nobody is stopping you.

>
> >>> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
> >>> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
> >>> somewhat dead.
> >>
> >> reiserfs is in  maintenance mode - there aren't much changes. In
> >> fact, less
> >> changes is a good thing.
> >
> > maintenance mode = stagnant, no?

wrong. maintenance mode = stable.


> >
> >>  Edward is also pretty much the last person working on reiser4. You are
> >> attacking him, but I don't see patches from you. Gives someone
> >> something to
> >> think about.
> >
> > Right because he has slammed heads with everyone that was willing to
> > help him. I was willing and when I tried talking with him he blew me
> > off. So I forked. OntoLab too.
>
> Yes, that's exactly the point.

and then you stayed in your little corner. Nobody knows about your forks. 
Nobody can use your forks. Or are you sending your patches to Andrew Morton 
for -mm inclusion?

> >> look at the archives. Edward has good reasons to feel ripped of.
> >> Maybe it is all a big miscommunication. But that isn't solved when
> >> ontolabs
> >> guys agressively advertise for themselves.
> >
> > But what else is there when a snails pace is being achieved otherwise?

'diplomacy' look into it, a very interesting topic.

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
> On Samstag 25 April 2009, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
>   
>> Jason,
>>
>>     
>>> Volker,
>>>
>>>       
>>>>> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
>>>>>           
>>>> it is pretty much his mailing list.
>>>>         
>>> Just because he is the "maintainer".
>>>
>>> Am I wrong, but the community owns the code, not Edward.
>>>       
>> I have had the same impression in the past, but now I have learned
>> something new.
>>
>>     
>
> people who write the code own the code. How many reiserfs or reiser4 related 
> patches from you two got into the kernel in the last... lets say 4 years?
>   
You don't hit the real problem. The last time we were at this question 
in this mailing-list, I said it seems to be, that we're are running in 
circles since 2 or 3 years. As Jason and I said, the maintainer refused 
to communicate with persons trying to support the development of the 
filesystem. Is this fact really so heavy to understand?
>   
>>> I mean, I could host a reiser list on my mail server.
>>>       
>> I can do it too ;)
>>     
>
> if you want to - nobody is stopping you.
>   
?!
>   
>>>>> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
>>>>> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
>>>>> somewhat dead.
>>>>>           
>>>> reiserfs is in  maintenance mode - there aren't much changes. In
>>>> fact, less
>>>> changes is a good thing.
>>>>         
>>> maintenance mode = stagnant, no?
>>>       
>
> wrong. maintenance mode = stable.
>   
?!
>
>   
>>>>  Edward is also pretty much the last person working on reiser4. You are
>>>> attacking him, but I don't see patches from you. Gives someone
>>>> something to
>>>> think about.
>>>>         
>>> Right because he has slammed heads with everyone that was willing to
>>> help him. I was willing and when I tried talking with him he blew me
>>> off. So I forked. OntoLab too.
>>>       
>> Yes, that's exactly the point.
>>     
>
> and then you stayed in your little corner. Nobody knows about your forks. 
> Nobody can use your forks.
???
>  Or are you sending your patches to Andrew Morton 
> for -mm inclusion?
>   
We are not at this point (see above).
>   
>>>> look at the archives. Edward has good reasons to feel ripped of.
>>>> Maybe it is all a big miscommunication. But that isn't solved when
>>>> ontolabs
>>>> guys agressively advertise for themselves.
>>>>         
>>> But what else is there when a snails pace is being achieved otherwise?
>>>       
>
> 'diplomacy' look into it, a very interesting topic.
>   
???
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
With best regards
C. Stroetmann

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Arend,
> Jason Todd Slack-Moehrle wrote:
>   
>> So I forked. OntoLab too.
>>     
> Where is you fork, and where is the fork from OntoLab? The reiser4
> patches on http://www.ontolinux.com/technology/ontofs.htm are identical
> to the patches from Eduard
>   
1. I declared that it is not really a fork in the normal sense. I would 
call it a further development.
2. I started mirroring the code to support the development of the 
filesystem and to give it a webpage, which others can count on. This was 
done before the code was put into kernel.org space.
3. I do repeat now again: We're running in circles since 2 or 3 years. I 
also said to this kind of questions in this thread, that we aren't at 
this point actually. That means, we still have not got an open source 
(developer) community conform answer by responsible persons.
4. I hold my code back until the actual maintainer declares what he 
really is doing, is gone, or I have build up an own infrastructure with 
a mailing-list and other needed items. The latter will be what is called 
a fork and follow the advice of the actual maintainer (quote: "Go away").
> Cheers,
>
> Arend
Best regards
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Alli Quaknaa]

Hello,
I don't know the background of OntoLabs 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 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?
2. @Christian: What did you have in mind when you set the page up?
What features were you going to work on if Edward cooperated with you
(as you say he refused to; I don't know the history so please excuse
me everybody)? 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.
3. Everybody else: Could you please point me somewhere I can read
about this whole history? 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.

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.

al-Quaknaa

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

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)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Alli,
> Well, as you noted at the end of your reply, it is polite to reply to
> answers. Maybe you can be the one to start.
>   
What am I doing since months?
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
> <stroetmann@ontolab.com> wrote:
>   
>> 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).
>>     
> It is common to give it a completly different name in case there are
> some legal issues, for example Gaim -> Pidgin (AIM legal problem).
Okay
>  It
> is common to give a name back-referencing the original project you are
> forking, for example Go-OO (enhanced OpenOffice.org which tries to
> cooperate with the original project).
Okay
>  But I'm sure that you can give
> examples of forks that chose distinct names to tell the two projects
> apart (Mambo - Joomla).
Is it a typo: Can give or can't give?
>  I would not say that one or another custom is
> more common.
>   
I don't understand this remark. All your possibilies you enumerated does 
say the same: It is common for a reason to give something a new name. 
And my for simplicity of discussion not named real examples are a 
database named X as the foundation and the same database with 
transaction enhancement but named Y. Than the same database X and 
another version of this database with other goodies now named Z. A one 
liner on the websites of Y and Z, which is referencing database X, and 
ready. A real world example (I can look after the real names in my 
archive, if you really need to know them).
>>>  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.
>>     
> I think that the "special issue" is not exactly what caused somebody
> to leave;
The reaction to leave were a more than clear answer.
>  I still use reiser4 simply because it is a very good
> filesystem.
Yes, okay. But the opinions in this case were 50 to 50. You say, that 
you belong to the group of persons, who are interested in the 
filesystem. I belong to the other group, and for us the context and the 
persons around a project are important concerns. Only a short reminder: 
The "special issue" was not stealing some candies.
>  Also, you didn't say what development other then renaming
> and setting up a webpage and stuff have you done.
Sorry, but this is wrong. I do understand that my project is highly 
complex, but experts understand directly the genius solution, eg. 
universities in Germany have arranged the education in Computer Sciences 
around nearly all of the mentioned themes/items on the OntoLinux 
webpage. I think it will take 10 to 15 years to see for persons not 
deeply involved in these areas of Informatics how elegant and 
progressive my development really is.
>  Sure, you can say it
> because you didn't want someone to steal from you. But THAT is
> definitely not a common opensource process.
Yes, because it is not a common solution.
>  And there is no original
> code I could download from you.
>   
Yes, but only until it is better known and accepted. After these the bad 
guys can't steal anymore.
>>> 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.
>>     
> Before reiser4 patches were available from kernel.org they were
> available from namesys.
Yes, as long as the company namesys was running.
>  Then there was time when it was available from
> both sources and then namesys went down.
No, AFAIK that is wrong.
>  So you set this up at the
> time when namesys webpage (and company) was still functional? This
> makes me wonder even more why would you set up your own page when
> there was a company developing the filesystem.
>   
Please see above.
>>> 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.
>>     
> Well, that might be why I put in the past tense. So please answer me,
> what features were you going to work on?
>   
General functionality and common development, the hardlink problem 
(which is after Al Viro one of the NO MAINLINE FOR REISER4 problems), a 
potential solution for the cyclic dependance problem, some ideas for the 
plug-in architecture problem (which is also a NO MAINLINE FOR REISER4 
problem), the described Semantic (World Wide) Web transformation, and 
much more.
>>> (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.
>>     
> I really don't know about any other project that would use this
> process and it looks cheesy.
Sorry, that is a personal problem. See also above.
>  And I don't know about patents,
Sorry, but you don't have insight into this technological area. If I 
tell you that the situation is like I say, than you should trust me.
>  for
> example the btrfs filesystem is implementing a lot of features used in
> commercial filesystems and they don't seem to have any problems.
Oh, please, there are many reasons for this, eg. old patents, no 
patents, open source, bought patents by the opensource community, and so 
on. To your btrfs example: I'm sure that Oracle has thoroughly looked at 
potential patent problems.
>  So
> could you please be more specific, either in explaining the features
> or the reasons why you don't want to/can't publush them?
>   
See above. I do know who is taking everything from other projects and is 
using it for its business without referencing the sources (no names will 
be given here).
>>> 3. Everybody else: Could you please point me somewhere I can read
>>> about this whole history?
>>>       
>> The history of R4 or this special thread?
>>     
> The history of reiser4, you, OntoLab. I just want a link to where this
> problem started.
>   
The history, todo-lists, manuals, helping documents, and the other items 
of R4 are scattered in the internet. I wanted to collect them on the 
proposed project page.
My opinions are given in this mailing-list.
OntoLab is the name of the laboratory. The project is named OntoLinux. 
The storage system can be found in the Components section. Also, you 
must be at least familiar to the bare bone with everything linked in the 
Software and Hardware lists.
>>>  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.
>>     
> Sure. But from what I've seen it looks like they did in the past and
> don't consider it necessary now, because repeating the same thing over
> again would be a waste of time. That's why I want to read the first
> mails about this.
>   
Have fun searching, finding, reading, and understanding. It took me some 
portions of precious time.
>>> 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.)
>>     
> I was talking about setting a project page.
Please, read the mailing-list first.
>  You were setting up a
> project page in a context of a completely different company (probably
> owned by you) with a different name, with no useful information on
> future development (just a load of "it will be great" text). There is
> a difference between the two.
>   
Please, read the mailing-list first. All different versions were proposed.
And I really do apologize for repeating, but: We are running in circles 
since 2 or 3 years. :-D
> Have a nice day,
> al-Quaknaa
>   
Have fun
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Alli Quaknaa]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
<stroetmann@ontolab.com> wrote:
> Dear Alli,
>>
>> Well, as you noted at the end of your reply, it is polite to reply to
>> answers. Maybe you can be the one to start.
>>
>
> What am I doing since months?
You didn't reply to the questions for the first time and some things
are still not clear to me. The questions were simple and yet you for
some reason seem to hide something.
>>
>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
>> <stroetmann@ontolab.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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).
>>>
>>
>> It is common to give it a completly different name in case there are
>> some legal issues, for example Gaim -> Pidgin (AIM legal problem).
>
> Okay
>>
>>  It
>> is common to give a name back-referencing the original project you are
>> forking, for example Go-OO (enhanced OpenOffice.org which tries to
>> cooperate with the original project).
>
> Okay
>>
>>  But I'm sure that you can give
>> examples of forks that chose distinct names to tell the two projects
>> apart (Mambo - Joomla).
>
> Is it a typo: Can give or can't give?
Can give.
>>
>>  I would not say that one or another custom is
>> more common.
>>
>
> I don't understand this remark. All your possibilies you enumerated does say
> the same: It is common for a reason to give something a new name. And my for
> simplicity of discussion not named real examples are a database named X as
> the foundation and the same database with transaction enhancement but named
> Y. Than the same database X and another version of this database with other
> goodies now named Z. A one liner on the websites of Y and Z, which is
> referencing database X, and ready. A real world example (I can look after
> the real names in my archive, if you really need to know them).
Usually you choose a familiar name to give credit to the original
project and a distinct name to distinguish yourself from the original
project, because you're heading in a different direction. You took the
very same code, did nothing, but chose a completely different name
because of an event concerning only the main developer, not the
project itself. Strange. But I don't really care that much for the
name, even though I think it signifies the real problem.
>>>>
>>>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> I think that the "special issue" is not exactly what caused somebody
>> to leave;
>
> The reaction to leave were a more than clear answer.
>>
>>  I still use reiser4 simply because it is a very good
>> filesystem.
>
> Yes, okay. But the opinions in this case were 50 to 50. You say, that you
> belong to the group of persons, who are interested in the filesystem. I
> belong to the other group, and for us the context and the persons around a
> project are important concerns. Only a short reminder: The "special issue"
> was not stealing some candies.
Yes, and it had nothing to do with the filesystem. Just a short reminder.
>>
>>  Also, you didn't say what development other then renaming
>> and setting up a webpage and stuff have you done.
>
> Sorry, but this is wrong. I do understand that my project is highly complex,
> but experts understand directly the genius solution, eg. universities in
> Germany have arranged the education in Computer Sciences around nearly all
> of the mentioned themes/items on the OntoLinux webpage. I think it will take
> 10 to 15 years to see for persons not deeply involved in these areas of
> Informatics how elegant and progressive my development really is.
I don't care all that much for your project (sorry), when I browsed
through the webpage (software/hardware) I saw links to other projects
(T2, LFS, Gentoo, other Linux distributions, ..., hardware platforms,
...) but I didn't get the main idea, what is it all about. Is it some
unification project? Is it a distribution? I guess this is beyond this
mailing list. BUT - I asked about the filesystem. I don't need to
understand the whole project to understand if you have done some
development on the filesystem or not. So have you? And what
development have you done?
>>
>>  Sure, you can say it
>> because you didn't want someone to steal from you. But THAT is
>> definitely not a common opensource process.
>
> Yes, because it is not a common solution.
It is a filesystem. There are many other filesystems. many of them are
targeted for specific purposes. many of them do what reiser4 was doing
and none of the opensource behaves like that. See btrfs wiki - it is
an open project with ideas publicly available online so that everyone
can steal from them. Why can't you do this?
>>
>>  And there is no original
>> code I could download from you.
>>
>
> Yes, but only until it is better known and accepted. After these the bad
> guys can't steal anymore.
How can it be better known and accepted when it is not available?
Also, I take this as a "no", because really, what good it is to the
reiser4 project when you don't give the changes back? BTW aren't you
obligated by the GPL licence? I'm not really sure about this but AFAIK
that is how it works.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Before reiser4 patches were available from kernel.org they were
>> available from namesys.
>
> Yes, as long as the company namesys was running.
>>
>>  Then there was time when it was available from
>> both sources and then namesys went down.
>
> No, AFAIK that is wrong.
I was using reiser4 for quite a long time and believe me, I would have
stopped if it wasn't available online. But there is no way of proving
this is true or that it is not.
>>
>>  So you set this up at the
>> time when namesys webpage (and company) was still functional? This
>> makes me wonder even more why would you set up your own page when
>> there was a company developing the filesystem.
>>
>
> Please see above.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Well, that might be why I put in the past tense. So please answer me,
>> what features were you going to work on?
>>
>
> General functionality and common development, the hardlink problem (which is
> after Al Viro one of the NO MAINLINE FOR REISER4 problems), a potential
> solution for the cyclic dependance problem, some ideas for the plug-in
> architecture problem (which is also a NO MAINLINE FOR REISER4 problem), the
> described Semantic (World Wide) Web transformation, and much more.
Some of those were bug fixes. I believe you had to deal with them to
use the filesystem for your own project. Did you send the patches back
to this ML? I really don't know because I signed to the ML only a few
months ago, that's why I'm asking.
>>>>
>>>> (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.
>>>
>>
>> I really don't know about any other project that would use this
>> process and it looks cheesy.
>
> Sorry, that is a personal problem. See also above.
>>
>>  And I don't know about patents,
>
> Sorry, but you don't have insight into this technological area. If I tell
> you that the situation is like I say, than you should trust me.
Most people don't accept this as an argument and neither do I. If your
reasons are real, then you are can tell me. Even say something you
think I wouldn't understand. I'm not dumb, I can read and use google.
>>
>>  for
>> example the btrfs filesystem is implementing a lot of features used in
>> commercial filesystems and they don't seem to have any problems.
>
> Oh, please, there are many reasons for this, eg. old patents, no patents,
> open source, bought patents by the opensource community, and so on. To your
> btrfs example: I'm sure that Oracle has thoroughly looked at potential
> patent problems.
I don't get your point. If you have problems because patents do not
exist yet and you've had a freat idea, you can publish it or patent
it, simply in some way make it known that it is your idea. No problem
in telling us in this case. If there are patents that you would like
to use then you have to deal with it, but it is still nothing to
prevent you from telling us. So what is the problem? Again, you didn't
answer when I asked you to be specific. Instead you are suggesting I
wouldn't understand. Maybe I wouldn't, but first you have to give me a
chance.
>>
>>  So
>> could you please be more specific, either in explaining the features
>> or the reasons why you don't want to/can't publush them?
>>
>
> See above. I do know who is taking everything from other projects and is
> using it for its business without referencing the sources (no names will be
> given here).
You can send me a personal email, I'm curious. Still you are using
code that was largely connected with the person of Hans Reiser and it
is rude and impolite not to give him credit for this. Maybe everything
you're doing is legal, but it doesn't mean it is not rude.
>>>>
>>>> 3. Everybody else: Could you please point me somewhere I can read
>>>> about this whole history?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The history of R4 or this special thread?
>>>
>>
>> The history of reiser4, you, OntoLab. I just want a link to where this
>> problem started.
>>
>
> The history, todo-lists, manuals, helping documents, and the other items of
> R4 are scattered in the internet. I wanted to collect them on the proposed
> project page.
> My opinions are given in this mailing-list.
> OntoLab is the name of the laboratory. The project is named OntoLinux. The
> storage system can be found in the Components section. Also, you must be at
> least familiar to the bare bone with everything linked in the Software and
> Hardware lists.
OK, thanks.
>>>>
>>>>  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.
>>>
>>
>> Sure. But from what I've seen it looks like they did in the past and
>> don't consider it necessary now, because repeating the same thing over
>> again would be a waste of time. That's why I want to read the first
>> mails about this.
>>
>
> Have fun searching, finding, reading, and understanding. It took me some
> portions of precious time.
>>>>
>>>> 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.)
>>>
>>
>> I was talking about setting a project page.
>
> Please, read the mailing-list first.
>>
>>  You were setting up a
>> project page in a context of a completely different company (probably
>> owned by you) with a different name, with no useful information on
>> future development (just a load of "it will be great" text). There is
>> a difference between the two.
>>
>
> Please, read the mailing-list first. All different versions were proposed.
> And I really do apologize for repeating, but: We are running in circles
> since 2 or 3 years. :-D
>>
>> Have a nice day,
>> al-Quaknaa
>>
>
> Have fun
> Christian *<:o)
>

al-Quaknaa
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Alli;
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
> <stroetmann@ontolab.com> wrote:
>  
>> Dear Alli,
>>    
>>> Well, as you noted at the end of your reply, it is polite to reply to
>>> answers. Maybe you can be the one to start.
>>>
>>>       
>> What am I doing since months?
>>     
> You didn't reply to the questions for the first time and some things
> are still not clear to me.
Please, that this is a thread. So I won't repeat again and again what 
was said before in this mailing-list.
>  The questions were simple
I gave answers.
>  and yet you for
> some reason seem to hide something.
>   
???
>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
>>> <stroetmann@ontolab.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>      
>>>> 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).
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> It is common to give it a completly different name in case there are
>>> some legal issues, for example Gaim -> Pidgin (AIM legal problem).
>>>       
>> Okay
>>    
>>>  It
>>> is common to give a name back-referencing the original project you are
>>> forking, for example Go-OO (enhanced OpenOffice.org which tries to
>>> cooperate with the original project).
>>>       
>> Okay
>>    
>>>  But I'm sure that you can give
>>> examples of forks that chose distinct names to tell the two projects
>>> apart (Mambo - Joomla).
>>>       
>> Is it a typo: Can give or can't give?
>>     
> Can give.
>  
>>>  I would not say that one or another custom is
>>> more common.
>>>
>>>       
>> I don't understand this remark. All your possibilies you enumerated 
>> does say
>> the same: It is common for a reason to give something a new name. And 
>> my for
>> simplicity of discussion not named real examples are a database named 
>> X as
>> the foundation and the same database with transaction enhancement but 
>> named
>> Y. Than the same database X and another version of this database with 
>> other
>> goodies now named Z. A one liner on the websites of Y and Z, which is
>> referencing database X, and ready. A real world example (I can look 
>> after
>> the real names in my archive, if you really need to know them).
>>     
> Usually you choose a familiar name to give credit to the original
> project and a distinct name to distinguish yourself from the original
> project, because you're heading in a different direction.
That's your opinion, which I can't follow.
>  You took the
> very same code,
Yes, that's right.  And I explained in this thread why.
>  did nothing,
No, that's wrong. The development of software consists of different 
phases and differnet works. I think I did much and explained why there 
was no patch or code delievered until today.
>  but chose a completely different name
> because of an event concerning only the main developer, not the
> project itself.
No, that's wrong and I can't understand why you bring it again. I 
answered this subject in my last e-mail (its written some lines below 
"50 to 50").
>  Strange. But I don't really care that much for the
> name, even though I think it signifies the real problem.
>   
Yes, and again: I explained it in the e-mail before (its written some 
lines below "50 to 50"). But I also offered in the past the R4 naming 
compromise. So, now I do ask: Where are the steps in my direction?
>>>>>  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.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I think that the "special issue" is not exactly what caused somebody
>>> to leave;
>>>       
>> The reaction to leave were a more than clear answer.
>>    
>>>  I still use reiser4 simply because it is a very good
>>> filesystem.
>>>       
>> Yes, okay. But the opinions in this case were 50 to 50. You say, that 
>> you
>> belong to the group of persons, who are interested in the filesystem. I
>> belong to the other group, and for us the context and the persons 
>> around a
>> project are important concerns. Only a short reminder: The "special 
>> issue"
>> was not stealing some candies.
>>     
> Yes, and it had nothing to do with the filesystem. Just a short reminder.
>   
But with the development, and that's enough. A would like at this point 
also to repeat: You have this opinion, and I have the other position. 
This leads again to my question: Where do get a compromise?
>>>  Also, you didn't say what development other then renaming
>>> and setting up a webpage and stuff have you done.
>>>       
>> Sorry, but this is wrong. I do understand that my project is highly 
>> complex,
>> but experts understand directly the genius solution, eg. universities in
>> Germany have arranged the education in Computer Sciences around 
>> nearly all
>> of the mentioned themes/items on the OntoLinux webpage. I think it 
>> will take
>> 10 to 15 years to see for persons not deeply involved in these areas of
>> Informatics how elegant and progressive my development really is.
>>     
> I don't care all that much for your project (sorry), when I browsed
> through the webpage (software/hardware) I saw links to other projects
> (T2, LFS, Gentoo, other Linux distributions, ..., hardware platforms,
> ...) but I didn't get the main idea, what is it all about. Is it some
> unification project?
Yes, it is an integrating distribution.
>  Is it a distribution? I guess this is beyond this
> mailing list.
Okay
>  BUT - I asked about the filesystem. I don't need to
> understand the whole project to understand if you have done some
> development on the filesystem or not. So have you? And what
> development have you done?
>   
I answered it in the e-mails before and clearified it in this e-mail.
>>>  Sure, you can say it
>>> because you didn't want someone to steal from you. But THAT is
>>> definitely not a common opensource process.
>>>       
>> Yes, because it is not a common solution.
>>     
> It is a filesystem.
No, it is more an integrating system with a Semantic Storage.
>  There are many other filesystems. many of them are
> targeted for specific purposes.
Yes
>  many of them do what reiser4 was doing
>   
No, that's wrong. There is only R4. The other storage systems, which are 
comparable, are based on a database (that means a propritary 
filestructure) or are not really functioning.
> and none of the opensource behaves like that.
That's no argument. See it as something new.
>  See btrfs wiki - it is
> an open project with ideas publicly available online so that everyone
> can steal from them. Why can't you do this?
>   
No one steals from eg. btrfs. Someone takes from a project items and the 
source project is referenced. But this only happens if a project is 
known to a wider audience. And it's much of work to explain it, to 
discuss it with other persons, and as I explained experts do understand 
my solution.
>>>  And there is no original
>>> code I could download from you.
>>>
>>>       
>> Yes, but only until it is better known and accepted. After these the bad
>> guys can't steal anymore.
>>     
> How can it be better known and accepted when it is not available?
>   
See it as the common process of publicating a whitepaper. There is now 
the general/theoretical concept publicated.
> Also, I take this as a "no", because really, what good it is to the
> reiser4 project when you don't give the changes back?
Please, read above
>  BTW aren't you
> obligated by the GPL licence? I'm not really sure about this but AFAIK
> that is how it works.
>   
Yes, and guess what I have clearified it on the OntoLinux website. Also, 
this isn't a point of discussion due to the clearness of the subject. 
Btw.: The GPL says not that I have to make my source public. It says, if 
I publicate it, then I have to give others the rights following the GPL.
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Before reiser4 patches were available from kernel.org they were
>>> available from namesys.
>>>       
>> Yes, as long as the company namesys was running.
>>    
>>>  Then there was time when it was available from
>>> both sources and then namesys went down.
>>>       
>> No, AFAIK that is wrong.
>>     
> I was using reiser4 for quite a long time and believe me, I would have
> stopped if it wasn't available online. But there is no way of proving
> this is true or that it is not.
>   
At that time I did what I did the webpage of namesys was gone and there 
was no code on kernel.org. Otherwise I wouldn't have done the mirroring.
>>>  So you set this up at the
>>> time when namesys webpage (and company) was still functional? This
>>> makes me wonder even more why would you set up your own page when
>>> there was a company developing the filesystem.
>>>
>>>       
>> Please see above.
>>    
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Well, that might be why I put in the past tense. So please answer me,
>>> what features were you going to work on?
>>>
>>>       
>> General functionality and common development, the hardlink problem 
>> (which is
>> after Al Viro one of the NO MAINLINE FOR REISER4 problems), a potential
>> solution for the cyclic dependance problem, some ideas for the plug-in
>> architecture problem (which is also a NO MAINLINE FOR REISER4 
>> problem), the
>> described Semantic (World Wide) Web transformation, and much more.
>>     
> Some of those were bug fixes. I believe you had to deal with them to
> use the filesystem for your own project.
Yes
>  Did you send the patches back
> to this ML?
No, because for my work I don't need patches. I only need a 
bootstrapping system. That means it doesn't matter if I use software, 
which is 2 years old or brandnew.
>  I really don't know because I signed to the ML only a few
> months ago, that's why I'm asking.
>   
I don't want to offend you if I say that I got this impression some 
e-mails before.
>>>>> (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.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I really don't know about any other project that would use this
>>> process and it looks cheesy.
>>>       
>> Sorry, that is a personal problem. See also above.
>>    
>>>  And I don't know about patents,
>>>       
>> Sorry, but you don't have insight into this technological area. If I 
>> tell
>> you that the situation is like I say, than you should trust me.
>>     
> Most people don't accept this as an argument and neither do I.
Okay, I do know this common situation.
>  If your
> reasons are real, then you are can tell me. Even say something you
> think I wouldn't understand. I'm not dumb, I can read and use google.
>   
Okay, but at this point I have to say that you need more than 15 years 
of learning, researching, and googling to get the needed knowledge for 
understanding and following discussion. Besides this, you should find 
some really good arguments, why I should write endless e-mails. What you 
want is the following: You want to drive a car, but before you start the 
engine Albert Einstein should explain why the atoms of the chassis hold 
together. You are not dumb, I'm sure you understand maybe everything, 
but we haven't the time. So you can trust me or in another field like 
the Linux kernel other persons like I do.
>>>  for
>>> example the btrfs filesystem is implementing a lot of features used in
>>> commercial filesystems and they don't seem to have any problems.
>>>       
>> Oh, please, there are many reasons for this, eg. old patents, no 
>> patents,
>> open source, bought patents by the opensource community, and so on. 
>> To your
>> btrfs example: I'm sure that Oracle has thoroughly looked at potential
>> patent problems.
>>     
> I don't get your point. If you have problems because patents do not
> exist yet and you've had a freat idea, you can publish it or patent
> it, simply in some way make it known that it is your idea. No problem
> in telling us in this case. If there are patents that you would like
> to use then you have to deal with it, but it is still nothing to
> prevent you from telling us. So what is the problem?
The patent things were said in conjunction with your example filesystem 
btrfs.
> Again, you didn't answer when I asked you to be specific.
I answered this in the e-mail before.
>  Instead you are suggesting I
> wouldn't understand. 
No
> Maybe I wouldn't, but first you have to give me a
> chance.
>   
Yes, and I repeat: You have to know at least everything to the bare bone 
that is listed in the software and hadware list on the OntoLinux website.
>>>  So
>>> could you please be more specific, either in explaining the features
>>> or the reasons why you don't want to/can't publush them?
>>>
>>>       
>> See above. I do know who is taking everything from other projects and is
>> using it for its business without referencing the sources (no names 
>> will be
>> given here).
>>     
> You can send me a personal email, I'm curious. Still you are using
> code that was largely connected with the person of Hans Reiser
No, there were other persons, companies, and institutes also in the game.
>  and it
> is rude and impolite not to give him credit for this. Maybe everything
> you're doing is legal, but it doesn't mean it is not rude.
>   
???
>>>>> 3. Everybody else: Could you please point me somewhere I can read
>>>>> about this whole history?
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>> The history of R4 or this special thread?
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> The history of reiser4, you, OntoLab. I just want a link to where this
>>> problem started.
>>>
>>>       
>> The history, todo-lists, manuals, helping documents, and the other 
>> items of
>> R4 are scattered in the internet. I wanted to collect them on the 
>> proposed
>> project page.
>> My opinions are given in this mailing-list.
>> OntoLab is the name of the laboratory. The project is named 
>> OntoLinux. The
>> storage system can be found in the Components section. Also, you must 
>> be at
>> least familiar to the bare bone with everything linked in the 
>> Software and
>> Hardware lists.
>>     
> OK, thanks.
>  
>>>>>  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.
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> Sure. But from what I've seen it looks like they did in the past and
>>> don't consider it necessary now, because repeating the same thing over
>>> again would be a waste of time. That's why I want to read the first
>>> mails about this.
>>>
>>>       
>> Have fun searching, finding, reading, and understanding. It took me some
>> portions of precious time.
>>    
>>>>> 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.)
>>>>
>>>>         
>>> I was talking about setting a project page.
>>>       
>> Please, read the mailing-list first.
>>    
>>>  You were setting up a
>>> project page in a context of a completely different company (probably
>>> owned by you) with a different name, with no useful information on
>>> future development (just a load of "it will be great" text). There is
>>> a difference between the two.
>>>
>>>       
>> Please, read the mailing-list first. All different versions were 
>> proposed.
>> And I really do apologize for repeating, but: We are running in circles
>> since 2 or 3 years. :-D
>>    
>>> Have a nice day,
>>> al-Quaknaa
>>>
>>>       
>> Have fun
>> Christian *<:o)
>>
>>     
>
> al-Quaknaa
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>   
Sincerely
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Mat]

Christian Stroetmann OntoLab <stroetmann <at> ontolab.com> writes:

> 
> Dear Alli;
> > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
> > <stroetmann <at> ontolab.com> wrote:
> >  
> >> Dear Alli,
> >>    
> >>> Well, as you noted at the end of your reply, it is polite to reply to
> >>> answers. Maybe you can be the one to start.
> >>>
> >>>       
> >> What am I doing since months?
> >>     

Hi guys,

as an outsider let me try to explain what "OntoFS" is all about (from what I
understood):

what Christian with OntoLab and other companies or organizations are doing here
is basic research and putting that research to practice:

"OntoFS" shall become a kind of versioning file system
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system) based on reiser4 (or
another filesystem if it's not possible to use it). This in some way follows
Hans' vision of developing a filesystem in which everything is a file and whose
life can be tracked (to simplify it really roughly). 

On the other hand it shall also become an "ontological" filesystem
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29) with which
files can be managed directly on the filesystem level. If I recall correctly
another of Hans' visions was to use reiser4 as kind of database-filesystem which
more and more today could become reality in association with ontology and the
so-called semantic Web or (on a simpler level) semantic desktop (?) (see kde 4).
In this regard reiser4' plugin architecture should be really helpful in order to
add more and more functionality.

DISCLAIMER:
I'm not affiliated with ontolab and as an outsider my description doesn't
necessarily have to describe the status or intentions of "OntoFS" accurately 

for more information have a look at:
* https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Ontofs/Web/OntofsIntro
(you can use translate.google.com to translate it into english from vietnamese)
* http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~syrah/pass/
* and the corresponding wikipedia entries about ontology, semantic web, etc.

Greetings

Mat

Re: reiser4 inclusion and beyond

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Mat,
> Christian Stroetmann OntoLab <stroetmann <at> ontolab.com> writes:
>
>   
>> Dear Alli;
>>     
>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
>>> <stroetmann <at> ontolab.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>       
>>>> Dear Alli,
>>>>    
>>>>         
>>>>> Well, as you noted at the end of your reply, it is polite to reply to
>>>>> answers. Maybe you can be the one to start.
>>>>>
>>>>>       
>>>>>           
>>>> What am I doing since months?
>>>>     
>>>>         
>
> Hi guys,
>
> as an outsider let me try to explain what "OntoFS" is all about (from what I
> understood):
>
> what Christian with OntoLab and other companies or organizations are doing here
> is basic research and putting that research to practice:
>   
Research & Development yielding in real products, eg. Linux based 
distributions.
> "OntoFS" shall become a kind of versioning file system
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system) based on reiser4 (or
> another filesystem if it's not possible to use it). This in some way follows
> Hans' vision of developing a filesystem in which everything is a file and whose
> life can be tracked (to simplify it really roughly).
It is a really very rough description of one small facet.
>  
>
> On the other hand it shall also become an "ontological" filesystem
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29) with which
> files can be managed directly on the filesystem level.
The descriptions in the wikipedia are partly misleading in a criminal 
sense. There really are to many bandwagon jumpers.
So I have to say: Sorry, but as the founder of this subject I would like 
to describe it myself.
>  If I recall correctly
> another of Hans' visions was to use reiser4 as kind of database-filesystem which
> more and more today could become reality in association with ontology and the
> so-called semantic Web or (on a simpler level)
Mr. Reiser has described the first half of the vision. With (the real) 
OntoFS the other half came to this game, especially the Semantic (World 
Wide) Web items. Mr.Reiser didn't use concepts like RDF or OWL. That's 
exactlly one of my inventions in the context of R4, which I made public 
and by this useable under the GPL.
>  semantic desktop (?) (see kde 4).
>   
This step was stolen from my OntoLinux website. Before I decided to take 
KDE there was no decision made by the Semantic Desktop.org research 
group to focus on KDE. (Mat you understood this wrong, who was first and 
who was second.) The other ideas taken by the Semantic Desktop.org from 
the OntoLinux website were to follow my steps, which are based on the 
well know concepts that in Unix everything is a file and that metadata 
is data. To give it the rest, the persons in the Semantic Desktop.org 
group tried to steal my concept and to get into the first place by 
defining an ontology for files.
The difference between OntoLinux and Semantic Desktop are now: OntoLinux 
is a full Linux based distribution with many other progressive features 
based on an ontological file/storage system, which is based on R4. 
Semantic Desktop is at the core an ontology-based clone. That means with 
the further development of R4 named OntoFS there is no need to use a 
special ontology. And if still persons think it is rude to talk about 
OntoFS in this mailing-list, then I would like to give the advices: 1. 
Try to get and read the vision for the next generation of R4 by Mr. 
Reiser. 2. See above.
> In this regard reiser4' plugin architecture should be really helpful in order to
> add more and more functionality.
>   
Yes, but now with the real OntoFS in the ontological and ontology-based 
sense.
> DISCLAIMER:
> I'm not affiliated with ontolab and as an outsider my description doesn't
> necessarily have to describe the status or intentions of "OntoFS" accurately
>   
Sorry Mat, but there are many things to say, which really will go out of 
the scope of this mailing-list.
> for more information have a look at:
> * https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Ontofs/Web/OntofsIntro
> (you can use translate.google.com to translate it into english from vietnamese)
>   
This was a nasty try to steal my concept. I would like to give 
interested persons the advice to follow the links given in the Semantic 
File/Storage System section on the Software links webpage of the 
OntoLinux webpage. Especially you should look at: Pass - Provenace Aware 
Storage Systems. With the real OntoFS there is no need to use KBDB - 
In-Kernel Berkeley Database, because it is based on R4. (Mat I really 
don't know why you named this project. It is one of many annoying clones.)
> * http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~syrah/pass/
> * and the corresponding wikipedia entries about ontology, semantic web, etc.
>   
Yes, but once again: The content of the wikipedia is subjective and in 
some parts misleading and manipulating.
> Greetings
>
> Mat
>
>
>
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>   
Have fun
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion and beyond

[Marcel Hilzinger]

Am Sonntag, 26. April 2009 10:50:13 schrieb Christian Stroetmann OntoLab:
> Dear Mat,
>
[...]
>
> >  semantic desktop (?) (see kde 4).
>
> This step was stolen from my OntoLinux website. Before I decided to take
> KDE there was no decision made by the Semantic Desktop.org research
> group to focus on KDE. (Mat you understood this wrong, who was first and
> who was second.) The other ideas taken by the Semantic Desktop.org from
> the OntoLinux website were to follow my steps, which are based on the
> well know concepts that in Unix everything is a file and that metadata
> is data. To give it the rest, the persons in the Semantic Desktop.org
> group tried to steal my concept and to get into the first place by
> defining an ontology for files.

@ontolab: I'm missing the "and Linus stole my kernel concept for kernel 0.0.4" 
from your statements. It's seems you do not really understand what open 
source is all about. It's about doing not claiming...

Regards,
Marcel


@all: Edward is right: Don't feed the Ontotroll, let's finish this thread.

Just see

http://www.stroetmann.ch/about/hinweis.htm

for his registered "trademarks".  

-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Marcel Hilzinger 

Linux New Media AG, Putzbrunner Str. 71, 81739 München, Germany
Tel: +49 89 99 34 110, Fax: +49 89 99 34 1199
mhilzinger@linuxnewmedia.de - http://www.linuxnewmedia.de
----------------------------------------------------------
Linux New Media, the Pulse of Open Source: Lawrence, KS - Málaga
Manchester - München - São Paulo - Warszawa
----------------------------------------------------------
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Putzbrunner Str. 71, 81739 München
Amtsgericht München: HRB 129161
Vorstand: Brian Osborn, Hermann Plank
Aufsichtsratsvorsitzender: Rudolf Strobl
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: reiser4 inclusion and beyond

[Alli Quaknaa]

The last trademarks are best.
I vote for "It's Unbelievable".
Also I agree on ending this thread.
al-Quaknaa

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Mat,
> Christian Stroetmann OntoLab <stroetmann <at> ontolab.com> writes:
>
>  
>> Dear Alli;
>>    
>>> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
>>> <stroetmann <at> ontolab.com> wrote:
>>>  
>>>      
>>>> Dear Alli,
>>>>           
>>>>> Well, as you noted at the end of your reply, it is polite to reply to
>>>>> answers. Maybe you can be the one to start.
>>>>>
>>>>>                 
>>>> What am I doing since months?
>>>>             
>
> Hi guys,
>
> as an outsider let me try to explain what "OntoFS" is all about (from 
> what I
> understood):
>
> what Christian with OntoLab and other companies or organizations are 
> doing here
> is basic research and putting that research to practice:
>   
Research & Development yielding in real products, eg. Linux based 
distributions.
> "OntoFS" shall become a kind of versioning file system
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Versioning_file_system) based on reiser4 
> (or
> another filesystem if it's not possible to use it). This in some way 
> follows
> Hans' vision of developing a filesystem in which everything is a file 
> and whose
> life can be tracked (to simplify it really roughly).
It is a really very rough description of one small facet.
>  
>
> On the other hand it shall also become an "ontological" filesystem
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology_%28information_science%29) with 
> which
> files can be managed directly on the filesystem level.
The descriptions in the wikipedia are partly misleading in a criminal 
sense. There really are to many bandwagon jumpers.
So I have to say: Sorry, but as the founder of this subject I would like 
to describe it myself.
>  If I recall correctly
> another of Hans' visions was to use reiser4 as kind of 
> database-filesystem which
> more and more today could become reality in association with ontology 
> and the
> so-called semantic Web or (on a simpler level)
Mr. Reiser has described the first half of the vision. With (the real) 
OntoFS the other half came to this game, especially the Semantic (World 
Wide) Web items. Mr.Reiser didn't use concepts like RDF or OWL. That's 
exactlly one of my inventions in the context of R4, which I made public 
and by this useable under the GPL.
>  semantic desktop (?) (see kde 4).
>   
This step was stolen from my OntoLinux website. Before I decided to take 
KDE there was no decision made by the Semantic Desktop.org research 
group to focus on KDE. (Mat you understood this wrong, who was first and 
who was second.) The other ideas taken by the Semantic Desktop.org from 
the OntoLinux website were to follow my steps, which are based on the 
well know concepts that in Unix everything is a file and that metadata 
is data. To give it the rest, the persons in the Semantic Desktop.org 
group tried to steal my concept and to get into the first place by 
defining an ontology for files.
The difference between OntoLinux and Semantic Desktop are now: OntoLinux 
is a full Linux based distribution with many other progressive features 
based on an ontological file/storage system, which is based on R4. 
Semantic Desktop is at the core an ontology-based clone. That means with 
the further development of R4 named OntoFS there is no need to use a 
special ontology. And if still persons think it is rude to talk about 
OntoFS in this mailing-list, then I would like to give the advices: 1. 
Try to get and read the vision for the next generation of R4 by Mr. 
Reiser. 2. See above.
> In this regard reiser4' plugin architecture should be really helpful 
> in order to
> add more and more functionality.
>   
Yes, but now with the real OntoFS in the ontological and ontology-based 
sense.
> DISCLAIMER:
> I'm not affiliated with ontolab and as an outsider my description doesn't
> necessarily have to describe the status or intentions of "OntoFS" 
> accurately
>   
Sorry Mat, but there are many things to say, which really will go out of 
the scope of this mailing-list.
> for more information have a look at:
> * https://picoforge.int-evry.fr/cgi-bin/twiki/view/Ontofs/Web/OntofsIntro
> (you can use translate.google.com to translate it into english from 
> vietnamese)
>   
This was a nasty try to steal my concept. I would like to give 
interested persons the advice to follow the links given in the Semantic 
File/Storage System section on the Software links webpage of the 
OntoLinux webpage. Especially you should look at: Pass - Provenace Aware 
Storage Systems. With the real OntoFS there is no need to use KBDB - 
In-Kernel Berkeley Database, because it is based on R4. (Mat I really 
don't know why you named this project. It is one of many annoying clones.)
> * http://www.eecs.harvard.edu/~syrah/pass/
> * and the corresponding wikipedia entries about ontology, semantic 
> web, etc.
>   
Yes, but once again: The content of the wikipedia is subjective and in 
some parts misleading and manipulating.
> Greetings
>
> Mat
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
> reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
>
>   
Have fun
Christian *<:o)
-- 
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[William Fisher]

Folks:

Is there a "formal" to-do list for R4 for it's eventual
inclusion into the kernel source tree?

I have asked Edward this question over a year ago,
and was pointed to some scraps of the dead
Namesys web site. Who knows if the list is even
accurate today? It's hard to track progress without
a "plan" and a list of development tasks.

Having a development task/wish list would go a long way to
opening up the development process. Bashing Edward does nothing
to help things move forward IMHO. Edward at least is carrying
the ball forward for the time he has spent on the project.

I have been writing some documentation as I
wade through the code. If there was some formal site
I would convert it into a set of wiki pages.

Thanks,


-- Bill (fisher@meer.net)

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Edward Shishkin]

William Fisher wrote:
> Folks:
>
> Is there a "formal" to-do list for R4 for it's eventual
> inclusion into the kernel source tree?
>
> I have asked Edward this question over a year ago,
> and was pointed to some scraps of the dead
> Namesys web site. 

You was pointed to a google cache which was valid
for a long time.

> Who knows if the list is even
> accurate today? It's hard to track progress without
> a "plan" and a list of development tasks.

Ok, we'll help you.
This is the original to-do list:
http://lkml.org/lkml/2006/8/3/38

The latest addressed issue was the one about
set_page_dirty_internal(): I have patched VFS
not so long ago:
http://marc.info/?l=linux-kernel&m=123452682220201&w=2

The following items are still unaddressed:

1. running igrab() in the writepage() path is really going to hammer
   inode_lock.  Something else will need to be done here.

2. Running iput() in entd() is a bit surprising.  iirc there are various 
ways
   in which this can recur into the filesystem, perform I/O, etc.  I 
guess it
   works..
   But again, it will hammer inode_lock.

3. the writeout logic in entd_flush() is interesting (as in "holy cow").
   It's very central and really needs some good comments describing what's
   going on in there - what problems are being solved, which decisions were
   taken and why, etc.

4. reiser4_wait_page_writeback() needs commenting.

5. reading the comment in txnmgr.c regarding MAP_SHARED pages: a number of
   things have changed since then.  We have page-becoming-writeable
   notifications and probably soon we'll always take a pagefault when a
   MAP_SHARED page transitions from pte-clean to pte-dirty (although I 
wouldn't
   recommend that a filesystem rely upon the latter for a while yet).

Feel free to address them.

Thanks,
Edward.

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[doiggl]

> The following items are still unaddressed:
> 
> 1. running igrab() in the writepage() path is really going to hammer
>    inode_lock.  Something else will need to be done here.
> 
> 2. Running iput() in entd() is a bit surprising.  iirc there are various

> ways
>    in which this can recur into the filesystem, perform I/O, etc.  I 
> guess it
>    works..
>    But again, it will hammer inode_lock.
> 
> 3. the writeout logic in entd_flush() is interesting (as in "holy cow").
>    It's very central and really needs some good comments describing
what's
>    going on in there - what problems are being solved, which decisions
were
>    taken and why, etc.
> 
> 4. reiser4_wait_page_writeback() needs commenting.
> 
> 5. reading the comment in txnmgr.c regarding MAP_SHARED pages: a number
of
>    things have changed since then.  We have page-becoming-writeable
>    notifications and probably soon we'll always take a pagefault when a
>    MAP_SHARED page transitions from pte-clean to pte-dirty (although I 
> wouldn't
>    recommend that a filesystem rely upon the latter for a while yet).
> 
> Feel free to address them.
> 
> Thanks,
> Edward.

Has the number of items reduced at all ?
just curious
Cheers Glenn 

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Christian Stroetmann]

Aloha Glenn;

At the 28.07.2010 17:21, you (doiggl@velocitynet.com.au) wrote:
>    
>> The following items are still unaddressed:
>>
>> 1. running igrab() in the writepage() path is really going to hammer
>>     inode_lock.  Something else will need to be done here.
>>
>> 2. Running iput() in entd() is a bit surprising.  iirc there are various
>>      
>    
>> ways
>>     in which this can recur into the filesystem, perform I/O, etc.  I
>> guess it
>>     works..
>>     But again, it will hammer inode_lock.
>>
>> 3. the writeout logic in entd_flush() is interesting (as in "holy cow").
>>     It's very central and really needs some good comments describing
>>      
> what's
>    
>>     going on in there - what problems are being solved, which decisions
>>      
> were
>    
>>     taken and why, etc.
>>
>> 4. reiser4_wait_page_writeback() needs commenting.
>>
>> 5. reading the comment in txnmgr.c regarding MAP_SHARED pages: a number
>>      
> of
>    
>>     things have changed since then.  We have page-becoming-writeable
>>     notifications and probably soon we'll always take a pagefault when a
>>     MAP_SHARED page transitions from pte-clean to pte-dirty (although I
>> wouldn't
>>     recommend that a filesystem rely upon the latter for a while yet).
>>
>> Feel free to address them.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Edward.
>>      
> Has the number of items reduced at all ?
> just curious
> Cheers Glenn
>    

I haven't looked at the code since several years. But as far as I have 
followed the development, all of the patch sets since then (April 2009) 
were only of cosmetical nature, or said with other words, to keep it 
coping with changes at different positions, like eg. VFS.
And in a handful of blogs I got no additional/other informations, 
despite that the maintainer is working at a company in the field of 
another file system since the end of last year, so that he has only few 
time for Reiser FSs, and also that the opinions are that the project is 
dead.

Cheerio
Christian *<:o)   O>-<   -(D)>-<

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Christian Stroetmann]

Hi Glenn;

On the 28.07.2010 21:58, I wrote:
> Aloha Glenn;
>
> At the 28.07.2010 17:21, you (doiggl@velocitynet.com.au) wrote:
>>> The following items are still unaddressed:
>>>
>>> 1. running igrab() in the writepage() path is really going to hammer
>>>     inode_lock.  Something else will need to be done here.
>>>
>>> 2. Running iput() in entd() is a bit surprising.  iirc there are 
>>> various
>>> ways
>>>     in which this can recur into the filesystem, perform I/O, etc.  I
>>> guess it
>>>     works..
>>>     But again, it will hammer inode_lock.
>>>
>>> 3. the writeout logic in entd_flush() is interesting (as in "holy 
>>> cow").
>>>     It's very central and really needs some good comments describing
>> what's
>>>     going on in there - what problems are being solved, which decisions
>> were
>>>     taken and why, etc.
>>>
>>> 4. reiser4_wait_page_writeback() needs commenting.
>>>
>>> 5. reading the comment in txnmgr.c regarding MAP_SHARED pages: a number
>> of
>>>     things have changed since then.  We have page-becoming-writeable
>>>     notifications and probably soon we'll always take a pagefault 
>>> when a
>>>     MAP_SHARED page transitions from pte-clean to pte-dirty (although I
>>> wouldn't
>>>     recommend that a filesystem rely upon the latter for a while yet).
>>>
>>> Feel free to address them.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Edward.
>> Has the number of items reduced at all ?
>> just curious
>> Cheers Glenn
>
> I haven't looked at the code since several years. But as far as I have 
> followed the development, all of the patch sets since then (April 
> 2009) were only of cosmetical nature, or said with other words, to 
> keep it coping with changes at different positions, like eg. VFS.
> And in a handful of blogs I got no additional/other informations, 
> despite that the maintainer is working at a company in the field of 
> another file system since the end of last year, so that he has only 
> few time for Reiser FSs, and also that the opinions are that the 
> project is dead.
>

We also found out that, like the ReiserFS maintainer, the starter of 
this thread, who is also the starter and maintainer of the ReiserFS wiki 
as well as the filler of the ReiserFS wiki with copyrighted materials, 
has changed to the development of the Btrfs file system, too. For 
example in June he made a patch with:

-	tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
-	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
+	tristate "Btrfs filesystem"

so that "Btrfs is highly experimental" could be substituted with "Btrfs 
is under heavy development".

Again, this gives something to think about the engagement of the person, 
as well. We always had the impression that he, like a handful of other 
persons, was only here at reiserfs to mess up the R4 development, to 
work and make politics against this project, and to disturb the 
developers and their businesses.
Btw.: In the case of copying copyrighted materials into the ReiserFS 
wiki the kernel.org administrator was already informed by us, but 
explained that it's up to [Hans Reiser] to ask for removing these 
materials from kernel.org, which is an argumentation we are unable to 
understand, because the kernel.org administrator does know that 
copyrighted materials are illegally publicated on the kernel.org website.

Cheerio
Christian *<:o)   O>-<   -(D)>-<

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 01 August 2010, Christian Stroetmann wrote:

> 
> We also found out that, like the ReiserFS maintainer, the starter of
> this thread, who is also the starter and maintainer of the ReiserFS wiki
> as well as the filler of the ReiserFS wiki with copyrighted materials,
> has changed to the development of the Btrfs file system, too. For
> example in June he made a patch with:
> 
> -	tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
> -	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> +	tristate "Btrfs filesystem"
> 
> so that "Btrfs is highly experimental" could be substituted with "Btrfs
> is under heavy development".
> 
> Again, this gives something to think about the engagement of the person,
> as well. 

who is 'we'?
And everybody needs a job to put food on the table. Not everybody is freaking 
rich and working for pleasure.

You have a very obvious agenda against Edward - why?

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Christian Stroetmann]

On 01.08.2010 15:58, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sonntag 01 August 2010, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
>
>    
>> We also found out that, like the ReiserFS maintainer, the starter of
>> this thread, who is also the starter and maintainer of the ReiserFS wiki
>> as well as the filler of the ReiserFS wiki with copyrighted materials,
>> has changed to the development of the Btrfs file system, too. For
>> example in June he made a patch with:
>>
>> -	tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
>> -	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
>> +	tristate "Btrfs filesystem"
>>
>> so that "Btrfs is highly experimental" could be substituted with "Btrfs
>> is under heavy development".
>>
>> Again, this gives something to think about the engagement of the person,
>> as well.
>>      
> who is 'we'?
> And everybody needs a job to put food on the table. Not everybody is freaking
> rich and working for pleasure.
>
> You have a very obvious agenda against Edward - why?

We only waited for that usual comment, which contains no code, no 
concept, no comment, no consturctive critics, no activities, nada - just 
only stupid and cheap politics, as always.
So let me quote the actual maintainer:
"Please,
don't flood in this mailing list.
Go away!"

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sonntag 01 August 2010, you wrote:
> On 01.08.2010 15:58, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Sonntag 01 August 2010, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
> >> We also found out that, like the ReiserFS maintainer, the starter of
> >> this thread, who is also the starter and maintainer of the ReiserFS wiki
> >> as well as the filler of the ReiserFS wiki with copyrighted materials,
> >> has changed to the development of the Btrfs file system, too. For
> >> example in June he made a patch with:
> >> 
> >> -	tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
> >> -	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
> >> +	tristate "Btrfs filesystem"
> >> 
> >> so that "Btrfs is highly experimental" could be substituted with "Btrfs
> >> is under heavy development".
> >> 
> >> Again, this gives something to think about the engagement of the person,
> >> as well.
> > 
> > who is 'we'?
> > And everybody needs a job to put food on the table. Not everybody is
> > freaking rich and working for pleasure.
> > 
> > You have a very obvious agenda against Edward - why?
> 
> We only waited for that usual comment, which contains no code, no
> concept, no comment, no consturctive critics, no activities, nada - just
> only stupid and cheap politics, as always.
> So let me quote the actual maintainer:
> "Please,
> don't flood in this mailing list.
> Go away!"

hm, one mail from me in weeks vs douzends of mails from you. You attacking 
Edward, you acting obnoxious, you talking of yourself in third person.

Your point of view seems to be very distortet. Maybe you should follow your 
own advice.

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Christian Stroetmann]

Am 01.08.2010 16:23, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> On Sonntag 01 August 2010, you wrote:
>    
>> On 01.08.2010 15:58, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>      
>>> On Sonntag 01 August 2010, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
>>>        
>>>> We also found out that, like the ReiserFS maintainer, the starter of
>>>> this thread, who is also the starter and maintainer of the ReiserFS wiki
>>>> as well as the filler of the ReiserFS wiki with copyrighted materials,
>>>> has changed to the development of the Btrfs file system, too. For
>>>> example in June he made a patch with:
>>>>
>>>> -	tristate "Btrfs filesystem (EXPERIMENTAL) Unstable disk format"
>>>> -	depends on EXPERIMENTAL
>>>> +	tristate "Btrfs filesystem"
>>>>
>>>> so that "Btrfs is highly experimental" could be substituted with "Btrfs
>>>> is under heavy development".
>>>>
>>>> Again, this gives something to think about the engagement of the person,
>>>> as well.
>>>>          
>>> who is 'we'?
>>> And everybody needs a job to put food on the table. Not everybody is
>>> freaking rich and working for pleasure.
>>>
>>> You have a very obvious agenda against Edward - why?
>>>        
>> We only waited for that usual comment, which contains no code, no
>> concept, no comment, no consturctive critics, no activities, nada - just
>> only stupid and cheap politics, as always.
>> So let me quote the actual maintainer:
>> "Please,
>> don't flood in this mailing list.
>> Go away!"
>>      
> hm, one mail from me in weeks vs douzends of mails from you. You attacking
> Edward, you acting obnoxious, you talking of yourself in third person.
>    

???

> Your point of view seems to be very distortet. Maybe you should follow your
> own advice.
>    

* plonk *

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Nick Piggin]

On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:43:05PM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
> Hi Glenn;
> 
> On the 28.07.2010 21:58, I wrote:
> >Aloha Glenn;
> >
> >At the 28.07.2010 17:21, you (doiggl@velocitynet.com.au) wrote:
> >>>The following items are still unaddressed:
> >>>
> >>>1. running igrab() in the writepage() path is really going to hammer
> >>>    inode_lock.  Something else will need to be done here.
> >>>
> >>>2. Running iput() in entd() is a bit surprising.  iirc there
> >>>are various
> >>>ways
> >>>    in which this can recur into the filesystem, perform I/O, etc.  I
> >>>guess it
> >>>    works..
> >>>    But again, it will hammer inode_lock.

inode_lock should be going away within 6 months or so, with the
vfs-scaling developments (see linux-fsdevel).

Inode refcounting becomes very light-weight, as it should be.


> >>>3. the writeout logic in entd_flush() is interesting (as in
> >>>"holy cow").
> >>>    It's very central and really needs some good comments describing
> >>what's
> >>>    going on in there - what problems are being solved, which decisions
> >>were
> >>>    taken and why, etc.
> >>>
> >>>4. reiser4_wait_page_writeback() needs commenting.
> >>>
> >>>5. reading the comment in txnmgr.c regarding MAP_SHARED pages: a number
> >>of
> >>>    things have changed since then.  We have page-becoming-writeable
> >>>    notifications and probably soon we'll always take a
> >>>pagefault when a
> >>>    MAP_SHARED page transitions from pte-clean to pte-dirty (although I
> >>>wouldn't
> >>>    recommend that a filesystem rely upon the latter for a while yet).

It is now possible to trap all dirtying activity from all sources
except get_user_pages (but filesystems tend to ignore that little
problem).

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Edward Shishkin]

Nick Piggin wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 03:43:05PM +0200, Christian Stroetmann wrote:
>   
>> Hi Glenn;
>>
>> On the 28.07.2010 21:58, I wrote:
>>     
>>> Aloha Glenn;
>>>
>>> At the 28.07.2010 17:21, you (doiggl@velocitynet.com.au) wrote:
>>>       
>>>>> The following items are still unaddressed:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. running igrab() in the writepage() path is really going to hammer
>>>>>    inode_lock.  Something else will need to be done here.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Running iput() in entd() is a bit surprising.  iirc there
>>>>> are various
>>>>> ways
>>>>>    in which this can recur into the filesystem, perform I/O, etc.  I
>>>>> guess it
>>>>>    works..
>>>>>    But again, it will hammer inode_lock.
>>>>>           
>
> inode_lock should be going away within 6 months or so, with the
> vfs-scaling developments (see linux-fsdevel).
>   

Yup, I keep a track of your efforts,
it would be nice..

> Inode refcounting becomes very light-weight, as it should be.
>
>
>   
>>>>> 3. the writeout logic in entd_flush() is interesting (as in
>>>>> "holy cow").
>>>>>    It's very central and really needs some good comments describing
>>>>>           
>>>> what's
>>>>         
>>>>>    going on in there - what problems are being solved, which decisions
>>>>>           
>>>> were
>>>>         
>>>>>    taken and why, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> 4. reiser4_wait_page_writeback() needs commenting.
>>>>>
>>>>> 5. reading the comment in txnmgr.c regarding MAP_SHARED pages: a number
>>>>>           
>>>> of
>>>>         
>>>>>    things have changed since then.  We have page-becoming-writeable
>>>>>    notifications and probably soon we'll always take a
>>>>> pagefault when a
>>>>>    MAP_SHARED page transitions from pte-clean to pte-dirty (although I
>>>>> wouldn't
>>>>>    recommend that a filesystem rely upon the latter for a while yet).
>>>>>           
>
> It is now possible to trap all dirtying activity from all sources
> except get_user_pages (but filesystems tend to ignore that little
> problem).
>   

Thanks for looking at this.

Edward.

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Ralph Ulrich]

Christian Stroetmann 2010-08-01 15:43:
>> I haven't looked at the code since several years. But as far as I
>> have followed the development, all of the patch sets since then
>> (April 2009) were only of cosmetical nature, or said with other
>> words, to keep it coping with changes at different positions, like
>> eg. VFS. And in a handful of blogs I got no additional/other
>> informations, despite that the maintainer is working at a company in
>> the field of another file system since the end of last year, so that
...
> We always had the impression that he, like a handful
> of other persons, was only here at reiserfs to mess up the R4
> development, to work and make politics against this project, and to
> disturb the developers and their businesses.

I would like to thank E. Shishkin for his efforts to keep Reiser4 
breathing. I never had the impression someone wants to disturb 
development....

>> , and also that the opinions are that the project is dead.

I see an amount of features went into btrfs. And the skills of former 
Reiser4 developers also. Also Shishkin did his expertise on btrfs. What 
never was discussed during efforts to get Reiser4 into mainline kernel 
development:

The potentials of a never coming Reiser5 regarding semantics.

- As one can see at Christian Stroetmanns sites he has done some 
thinking that direction.

- As one can see watching the Nepomuk development, semantic development 
is hard, unprecedented and therefore has a very slowly ongoing.

Development of an all purpose filesystem mixed with an all purpose 
semantic feature seems to be too big of a challange yet. 

Me, non developer, would faczinate a revived Reiser4 as a fuse-
filesystem for experimental storage ideas! Some sort of database? A 
Nepomuk storage backend? I wonder if some NoSql projects out there have 
reimplemented Reiser4 techniques?

Re: Formal Reiser4 inclusion and todo list?

[Christian Stroetmann]

Hello Ralph;
On the 02.08.2010 16:30, you wrote:
> Christian Stroetmann 2010-08-01 15:43:
>    
>>> I haven't looked at the code since several years. But as far as I
>>> have followed the development, all of the patch sets since then
>>> (April 2009) were only of cosmetical nature, or said with other
>>> words, to keep it coping with changes at different positions, like
>>> eg. VFS. And in a handful of blogs I got no additional/other
>>> informations, despite that the maintainer is working at a company in
>>> the field of another file system since the end of last year, so that
>>>        
> ...
>    
>> We always had the impression that he, like a handful
>> of other persons, was only here at reiserfs to mess up the R4
>> development, to work and make politics against this project, and to
>> disturb the developers and their businesses.
>>      
> I would like to thank E. Shishkin for his efforts to keep Reiser4
> breathing. I never had the impression someone wants to disturb
> development....
>
>    

That is a problematic part of IT-business, and insights, feelings and 
experiences for and in such situations can be best developed, if someone 
is directly involved.

>>> , and also that the opinions are that the project is dead.
>>>        
> I see an amount of features went into btrfs. And the skills of former
> Reiser4 developers also. Also Shishkin did his expertise on btrfs.

Yes

>   What
> never was discussed during efforts to get Reiser4 into mainline kernel
> development:
>
> The potentials of a never coming Reiser5 regarding semantics.
>    

Sorry Ralph, but: No, that's not right.
What we did is exactly what you have mentioned: We gave it ontologics, 
which includes semantics and ontology based semantics. Or let say it 
with other words: Our [....]FS is based on R4 and could be described 
very rough as H. Reisers vision of the further development of R4 in a 
Semantic[/Ontologic] Web style, which could be seen as the R5 you 
mentioned, but has now another name that fits better with semantics and 
ontologics.
And we have explained such a semantic feature in a discussion on this 
mailing list. But just right from the start we got the advice by the 
actual maintainer:
"Go away!"
Later, we were also heavily attacked by other members of this mailing 
list with statements like "stealing", "that's rude" and so on.
Since then we are not allowed to talk about our R4 based fork.

Please read also this whole thread again, especially the messages of the 
days 19.04.2009 and 20.04.2009.

> - As one can see at Christian Stroetmanns sites he has done some
> thinking that direction.
>    

We hade started around the 1995s while no one was really interesting in 
these kind of semantic, ontologic and ontology based technologies.
And we have not done some thinking, it was in fact much more.

> - As one can see watching the Nepomuk development, semantic development
> is hard, unprecedented and therefore has a very slowly ongoing.
>    

Sorry again, but: No, that's not right. The EU-funded research project 
Nepomuk is largely based on stolen technologies from my company (eg. 
ontology for file system). After the presentation of our Linux based 
distribution with an R4 forked file system, that we are not allowed to 
mention here, and the ending of the monetary support of the related 
research project with tax money we gave only in small steps new 
informations about our technology so that it couldn't be stolen further 
by that project, members of the project, a newer project, a company, or 
others. That's the real reason and has nothing to do with the technology 
itself, but in fact more with international governmental and industrial 
issues. Or said with oher words: We have the thumb on it.
Please, understand all that this kind of technologies, including R4, are 
no kindergarden games.

> Development of an all purpose filesystem mixed with an all purpose
> semantic feature seems to be too big of a challange yet.

We have to say sorry once again, but: No, that's wrong. Our R4 based 
file system is not only conceptually ready since 2006.

> Me, non developer, would faczinate a revived Reiser4 as a fuse-
> filesystem for experimental storage ideas! Some sort of database? A
> Nepomuk storage backend? I wonder if some NoSql projects out there have
> reimplemented Reiser4 techniques?
>    

Sorry, but: Our R4 and NoSql based file system is not only conceptually 
ready since 2006. Also, we had developed it, because several FUSE based 
approaches exist for these kinds of applications, but are to slow or not 
consistent from the point of view of their architectures. R4 has several 
features that fit exactly and a FUSE based R4 makes really no sense, 
because it is already a file system. Believe us, we were already there 
more than 8 years ago.

If the explanations were to harsh, then we beg for apologize.

With all the best and Yeah
Christian *<:o)   O>-<   -(D)>-<

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Volker Armin,
> On Samstag 25 April 2009, Jason Todd Slack-Moehrle wrote:
>   
>> Edward,
>>
>>     
>>> Please,
>>> don't flood in this mailing list.
>>> Go away!
>>>       
>> You are totally out of line here.
>>
>> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
>>     
>
> it is pretty much his mailing list.
>   
And what?
>   
>> Second, Christian, like all others, have a right to post here. You may
>> not agree with his posts (or what he is doing with OntoFS), but that
>> does not give you the right to tell him to go away.
>>     
>
> yes, it does. Just look at the archives.
>   
Ah, what?
>   
>> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
>> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
>> somewhat dead.
>>     
>
> reiserfs is in  maintenance mode - there aren't much changes. In fact, less 
> changes is a good thing.
>
> Edward is also pretty much the last person working on reiser4. You are 
> attacking him, but I don't see patches from you. Gives someone something to 
> think about.
>   
Yes, but not in the sense you want us to direct to.
>   
>> If there was more co-operation and less fighting, perhaps forking
>> would not need to be an issue, but with your head up your ass no
>> progress gets made, no leaps forward, nada, zip, zilch.
>>
>> -Jason
>>     
>
> look at the archives. Edward has good reasons to feel ripped of. 
> Maybe it is all a big miscommunication. But that isn't solved when ontolabs 
> guys agressively advertise for themselves.
>   
It is no agressive advertisment by us. It is standard communication in 
an open source mailing list.
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>   
Sincerely
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
> On Samstag 25 April 2009, you wrote:
>   
>> Dear Volker Armin,
>>
>>     
>>> On Samstag 25 April 2009, Jason Todd Slack-Moehrle wrote:
>>>       
>>>> Edward,
>>>>
>>>>         
>>>>> Please,
>>>>> don't flood in this mailing list.
>>>>> Go away!
>>>>>           
>>>> You are totally out of line here.
>>>>
>>>> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
>>>>         
>>> it is pretty much his mailing list.
>>>       
>> And what?
>>     
>
> his mailing list his rules.
Ah, really? Every day, there is something new to learn.
>  Also it is very impolite attacking people on their 
> own ml for breaking netiquette. Oh wait - it is impolite to attack people on 
> mailing lists for breaking netiquette - that is a break of it.
???
>  
>
>   
>>>> Second, Christian, like all others, have a right to post here. You may
>>>> not agree with his posts (or what he is doing with OntoFS), but that
>>>> does not give you the right to tell him to go away.
>>>>         
>>> yes, it does. Just look at the archives.
>>>       
>> Ah, what?
>>
>>     
>>>> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
>>>> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
>>>> somewhat dead.
>>>>         
>>> reiserfs is in  maintenance mode - there aren't much changes. In fact,
>>> less changes is a good thing.
>>>
>>> Edward is also pretty much the last person working on reiser4. You are
>>> attacking him, but I don't see patches from you. Gives someone something
>>> to think about.
>>>       
>> Yes, but not in the sense you want us to direct to.
>>     
>
> hm, what do you want people to think? 
> When was the last time ontolabs sent patches to lkml for review or mm 
> inclusion?
> Attacking Edward on the ml for being stubborn or not working enough doesn't 
> make you look good at all. Especially if he just acked a couple of patches a 
> few days ago and uploaded a patch for 2.6.29 shortly after its release.
>   
Sorry, but once again You haven't caught the real problem.
>
>   
>>> look at the archives. Edward has good reasons to feel ripped of.
>>> Maybe it is all a big miscommunication. But that isn't solved when
>>> ontolabs guys agressively advertise for themselves.
>>>       
>> It is no agressive advertisment by us. It is standard communication in
>> an open source mailing list.
>>     
>
> from my POV it looks like agressive advertisement. If it is not intended that 
> way, structure and wording needs a lot of improvement.
Luckily you are not the owner of the mailing-list

Regards
C. Stroetmann

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Hello Jason,
>
> Edward,
>
>> Please,
>> don't flood in this mailing list.
>> Go away!
>
> You are totally out of line here.
>
> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
>
> Second, Christian, like all others, have a right to post here. You may 
> not agree with his posts (or what he is doing with OntoFS), but that 
> does not give you the right to tell him to go away.
>
> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it 
> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically 
> somewhat dead.
>
> If there was more co-operation and less fighting, perhaps forking 
> would not need to be an issue, but with your head up your ass no 
> progress gets made, no leaps forward, nada, zip, zilch.
>
> -Jason
>
>> Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
>>> Dear Christian;
>>> You wrote:
>>>> With still no project page in sight,
>>> Under the label of my company and taking the full risk of losing
>>> reputation, in contrast to other well known Linux distributions and
>>> former supporters of R....4 fs which (partly) jumped off the train, I
>>> made the following offers in the past:
>>> 1. Support the R4 fs under the name R4.
>>> 2. Set up a project page or, on the wish of the developement
>>> community, a wiki.
>>> 3. Under an other name, which I've choosen and I'm not allowed to name
>>> in this mailinglist, I've have even developed another kind of file
>>> system.
>>>
>>> The results were:
>>> To 1.: No echo.
>>> To 2.: No replay.
>>> To 3.: I got a kindly "Go away" advice.
>>> And to give it the rest: I do have alternatives and if some persons
>>> think, that they can gain something by their destructive attitude,
>>> than I have to say: Okay, have a nice day.
>>>
>>> Being constructive, I think we need a new projcet management, maybe a
>>> new maintainer, or some bytes for archiving the digital waste.
>>>> I find it hard to track[0] the progress of the work being towards an
>>>> inclusion of reiser4 into mainline. Unable to help out with real
>>>> code, I look at the reiser4-for-2.6.29 diffstat (sans the fs/reiser4
>>>> parts!) and see:
>>>>
>>>> Documentation/Changes                         |   12
>>>> Documentation/filesystems/reiser4.txt         |   75
>>>> fs/Kconfig                                    |    1
>>>> fs/Makefile                                   |    1
>>>> fs/buffer.c                                   |    9
>>>> fs/fs-writeback.c                             |    5
>>>> include/linux/fs.h                            |    3
>>>> include/linux/mm.h                            |    2
>>>> mm/filemap.c                                  |    4
>>>> mm/page-writeback.c                           |   48
>>>> So, with 4 of them being "just" documentation and build magic, I take
>>>> it that we're 6 files and less than 100 lines of code away from at
>>>> least putting this file system into the new staging/ tree perhaps?
>>>>
>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>
>>> I found it more and more jokeless, what is going on around this fs.
>>> Btw.: I can't and I won't follow the claims and resitances made by Al
>>> Viro and other hard core coders against R4 and HFS+, especially the
>>> arguments in the hardlink subject.
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Christian.
>>>>
>>>> [0] http://tinyurl.com/dexfq9
>>>>
>>> Sincerely
>>> Christian *<:o)
>>> -- 
>>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe
>>> reiserfs-devel" in
>>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe 
>> reiserfs-devel" in
>> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
>> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>>
I would really like to know, what was and is going on behind the scenes.
If Mr. Shishkin wants some kind of monetary support for his work, then I 
have to say: "Sorry, but not this way" and "The time is over since two 
years". That  means no money! You got me? Good.

Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Samstag 25 April 2009, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
> Hello Jason,
>
> > Edward,
> >
> >> Please,
> >> don't flood in this mailing list.
> >> Go away!
> >
> > You are totally out of line here.
> >
> > First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
> >
> > Second, Christian, like all others, have a right to post here. You may
> > not agree with his posts (or what he is doing with OntoFS), but that
> > does not give you the right to tell him to go away.
> >
> > Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
> > has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
> > somewhat dead.
> >
> > If there was more co-operation and less fighting, perhaps forking
> > would not need to be an issue, but with your head up your ass no
> > progress gets made, no leaps forward, nada, zip, zilch.
> >
> > -Jason
> >
> >> Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
> >>> Dear Christian;
> >>>
> >>> You wrote:
> >>>> With still no project page in sight,
> >>>
> >>> Under the label of my company and taking the full risk of losing
> >>> reputation, in contrast to other well known Linux distributions and
> >>> former supporters of R....4 fs which (partly) jumped off the train, I
> >>> made the following offers in the past:
> >>> 1. Support the R4 fs under the name R4.
> >>> 2. Set up a project page or, on the wish of the developement
> >>> community, a wiki.
> >>> 3. Under an other name, which I've choosen and I'm not allowed to name
> >>> in this mailinglist, I've have even developed another kind of file
> >>> system.
> >>>
> >>> The results were:
> >>> To 1.: No echo.
> >>> To 2.: No replay.
> >>> To 3.: I got a kindly "Go away" advice.
> >>> And to give it the rest: I do have alternatives and if some persons
> >>> think, that they can gain something by their destructive attitude,
> >>> than I have to say: Okay, have a nice day.
> >>>
> >>> Being constructive, I think we need a new projcet management, maybe a
> >>> new maintainer, or some bytes for archiving the digital waste.
> >>>
> >>>> I find it hard to track[0] the progress of the work being towards an
> >>>> inclusion of reiser4 into mainline. Unable to help out with real
> >>>> code, I look at the reiser4-for-2.6.29 diffstat (sans the fs/reiser4
> >>>> parts!) and see:
> >>>>
> >>>> Documentation/Changes                         |   12
> >>>> Documentation/filesystems/reiser4.txt         |   75
> >>>> fs/Kconfig                                    |    1
> >>>> fs/Makefile                                   |    1
> >>>> fs/buffer.c                                   |    9
> >>>> fs/fs-writeback.c                             |    5
> >>>> include/linux/fs.h                            |    3
> >>>> include/linux/mm.h                            |    2
> >>>> mm/filemap.c                                  |    4
> >>>> mm/page-writeback.c                           |   48
> >>>> So, with 4 of them being "just" documentation and build magic, I take
> >>>> it that we're 6 files and less than 100 lines of code away from at
> >>>> least putting this file system into the new staging/ tree perhaps?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thoughts?
> >>>
> >>> I found it more and more jokeless, what is going on around this fs.
> >>> Btw.: I can't and I won't follow the claims and resitances made by Al
> >>> Viro and other hard core coders against R4 and HFS+, especially the
> >>> arguments in the hardlink subject.
> >>>
> >>>> Thanks,
> >>>> Christian.
> >>>>
> >>>> [0] http://tinyurl.com/dexfq9
> >>>
> >>> Sincerely
> >>> Christian *<:o)
>
> I would really like to know, what was and is going on behind the scenes.
> If Mr. Shishkin wants some kind of monetary support for his work, then I
> have to say: "Sorry, but not this way" and "The time is over since two
> years". That  means no money! You got me? Good.
>

no, you want to make money without paying him, right?

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
> On Samstag 25 April 2009, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
>   
>> Hello Jason,
>>
>>     
>>> Edward,
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Please,
>>>> don't flood in this mailing list.
>>>> Go away!
>>>>         
>>> You are totally out of line here.
>>>
>>> First, please following mailing list etiquette and don't top post
>>>
>>> Second, Christian, like all others, have a right to post here. You may
>>> not agree with his posts (or what he is doing with OntoFS), but that
>>> does not give you the right to tell him to go away.
>>>
>>> Third, if the community only relied on you to progress reiserfs, it
>>> has been years at this point and nothing significant. it is basically
>>> somewhat dead.
>>>
>>> If there was more co-operation and less fighting, perhaps forking
>>> would not need to be an issue, but with your head up your ass no
>>> progress gets made, no leaps forward, nada, zip, zilch.
>>>
>>> -Jason
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> Dear Christian;
>>>>>
>>>>> You wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> With still no project page in sight,
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Under the label of my company and taking the full risk of losing
>>>>> reputation, in contrast to other well known Linux distributions and
>>>>> former supporters of R....4 fs which (partly) jumped off the train, I
>>>>> made the following offers in the past:
>>>>> 1. Support the R4 fs under the name R4.
>>>>> 2. Set up a project page or, on the wish of the developement
>>>>> community, a wiki.
>>>>> 3. Under an other name, which I've choosen and I'm not allowed to name
>>>>> in this mailinglist, I've have even developed another kind of file
>>>>> system.
>>>>>
>>>>> The results were:
>>>>> To 1.: No echo.
>>>>> To 2.: No replay.
>>>>> To 3.: I got a kindly "Go away" advice.
>>>>> And to give it the rest: I do have alternatives and if some persons
>>>>> think, that they can gain something by their destructive attitude,
>>>>> than I have to say: Okay, have a nice day.
>>>>>
>>>>> Being constructive, I think we need a new projcet management, maybe a
>>>>> new maintainer, or some bytes for archiving the digital waste.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> I find it hard to track[0] the progress of the work being towards an
>>>>>> inclusion of reiser4 into mainline. Unable to help out with real
>>>>>> code, I look at the reiser4-for-2.6.29 diffstat (sans the fs/reiser4
>>>>>> parts!) and see:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Documentation/Changes                         |   12
>>>>>> Documentation/filesystems/reiser4.txt         |   75
>>>>>> fs/Kconfig                                    |    1
>>>>>> fs/Makefile                                   |    1
>>>>>> fs/buffer.c                                   |    9
>>>>>> fs/fs-writeback.c                             |    5
>>>>>> include/linux/fs.h                            |    3
>>>>>> include/linux/mm.h                            |    2
>>>>>> mm/filemap.c                                  |    4
>>>>>> mm/page-writeback.c                           |   48
>>>>>> So, with 4 of them being "just" documentation and build magic, I take
>>>>>> it that we're 6 files and less than 100 lines of code away from at
>>>>>> least putting this file system into the new staging/ tree perhaps?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thoughts?
>>>>>>             
>>>>> I found it more and more jokeless, what is going on around this fs.
>>>>> Btw.: I can't and I won't follow the claims and resitances made by Al
>>>>> Viro and other hard core coders against R4 and HFS+, especially the
>>>>> arguments in the hardlink subject.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Christian.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [0] http://tinyurl.com/dexfq9
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Sincerely
>>>>> Christian *<:o)
>>>>>           
>> I would really like to know, what was and is going on behind the scenes.
>> If Mr. Shishkin wants some kind of monetary support for his work, then I
>> have to say: "Sorry, but not this way" and "The time is over since two
>> years". That  means no money! You got me? Good.
>>
>>     
>
> no, you want to make money without paying him, right?
>   
Who asked this? I can't see a signature!

Sincerely
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Alexander Lyamin]

On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 3:58 AM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab
<stroetmann@ontolab.com> wrote:

> I would really like to know, what was and is going on behind the scenes.
> If Mr. Shishkin wants some kind of monetary support for his work, then I
> have to say: "Sorry, but not this way" and "The time is over since two
> years". That  means no money! You got me? Good.

"No money ?"
Is this a threat ?
"Two years ago?"
Are you right in your mind ?

Why do you have any right to talk about time and money regarding to
reiser4 in a first place.
Its not YOURS time and money were put there. And they are NOT YOURS to
take them out.
Have you read reiser4 license?
STOP capitalizing on someone else labor and ideas.
Or would you like to go to court?
I'd gladly sue you in oblivion, along with your circus show of a company.
Just for kicks... and profit.

-- 
connecting the dots
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Mat]

>1. Support the R4 fs under the name R4.
>2. Set up a project page or, on the wish of the developement community, 
>a wiki.
>3. Under an other name, which I've choosen and I'm not allowed to name 
>in this mailinglist, I've have even developed another kind of file system.

>The results were:
>To 1.: No echo.

yes please, please support reiser4 since its the only filesystem so far (besides
reiserfs 3.6) being able to deal with lots of my data in a secure and
space-efficient way while keeping the user in mind (synchronous writes while
using dm-devices, not corrupting or zeroing files out, ...) besides that it's
also very gentle towards harddrives (very silent operation and long battery
runtime) and has some kind of basic SSD support already built in due to its
"trees that cache well" from what I understand

>To 2.: No replay.

is there an official wiki yet ? can't it be hosted along with reiser4-patches,
reiser4progs, etc. on the kernel.org servers ?

I know there's some development going on (mainly in Russia ?) but wouldn't it be
more efficient to let others also partake in those efforts (e.g. by posting some
email) and learn from it in order to better understand the filesystem and then
at a later point being able to support and enhance the filesystem ?

>To 3.: I got a kindly "Go away" advice.

I guess that's the freedom the developers and maintainers have ;)
(* there's always the last resort in forking it which isn't the best way since
it won't bundle resources and efforts)

@Edward:

any news on reiser4's status ?

it has come a long way and - I hope - that it will find its way into Linus' tree
(I can't believe how many trouble my few ext3 or ext4-based partitions have
caused me recently. From my understandings reiserfs v3.6 and reiser4 wouldn't
cause that problems (incomplete or corrupt files, data loss, etc.) due to their
design)

Thanks

Mat

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Kujau]

Guys,

I did NOT intend to start (yet another) /flamewar/ about the pros and cons 
of this filesystem. I was really only wondering about the showstoppers 
left (i.e. code to fix) before this could be included. I still imagine 
that having a (halfway current) TODO list of things would help a lot here. 
The KernelJanitors/Todo list looks like a sane example of what I meant to 
have. 

Bashing around about "renaming the filesystem" and "unfriendly developers" 
is not what I consider helpful on this particular matter.

Thanks,
Christian.
-- 
Bruce Schneier memorizes his one time pads

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Christian;
You wrote:
> Guys,
>
> I did NOT intend to start (yet another) /flamewar/ about the pros and cons 
> of this filesystem. I was really only wondering about the showstoppers 
> left (i.e. code to fix) before this could be included. I still imagine 
> that having a (halfway current) TODO list of things would help a lot here. 
> The KernelJanitors/Todo list looks like a sane example of what I meant to 
> have. 
>
> Bashing around about "renaming the filesystem" and "unfriendly developers" 
> is not what I consider helpful on this particular matter.
>
> Thanks,
> Christian.
>   
It seems to be, that we're running in circles since 2 or 3 years.

Sincerely
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Christian Stroetmann OntoLab]

Dear Arend;
You wrote
> Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
>   
>> Dear Christian;
>> You wrote:
>>     
>>> Guys,
>>>
>>> I did NOT intend to start (yet another) /flamewar/ about the pros and
>>> cons of this filesystem. I was really only wondering about the
>>> showstoppers left (i.e. code to fix) before this could be included. I
>>> still imagine that having a (halfway current) TODO list of things
>>> would help a lot here. The KernelJanitors/Todo list looks like a sane
>>> example of what I meant to have.
>>> Bashing around about "renaming the filesystem" and "unfriendly
>>> developers" is not what I consider helpful on this particular matter.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Christian.
>>>   
>>>       
>> It seems to be, that we're running in circles since 2 or 3 years.
>>     
>
> A complaint about running around in circles is not a showstopper that
> blocks inclusion. Renaming "Reiser4" to "OntoFs"  doesn't help either. A
> good Todo list would really be helpful to  keep track of the status, to
> trigger feature implementation and/or bug fixes, and to have discussions
> about content, not procedures.
>
> Regards,
>
> Arend
I would like to encourage everybody interested in this subject to first 
read the reiserfs-devel mailing-list and my website concerning the R4 
filesystem entirely and carefully. If it is helpful and still not clear 
what is going on, I'm also willing to write a list of the steps that 
have happened.

Sincerely
Christian *<:o)

Re: reiser4 inclusion?

[Bron Gondwana]

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 08:35:14AM +0200, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab wrote:
> I would like to encourage everybody interested in this subject to first  
> read the reiserfs-devel mailing-list and my website concerning the R4  
> filesystem entirely and carefully. If it is helpful and still not clear  
> what is going on, I'm also willing to write a list of the steps that  
> have happened.

Link?  (for the website)

(reading the entire back archives would take a while, but I've been a
subscriber on the list for a few years, so most of it has probably
brushed past my conciousness at some time)

Bron.