Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: Reiser4 File-System Comes To Linux 3.5 Kernel

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    controversial file-system

    I cannot see anything controversial about it

    Still about the guy who wrote reiserfs? How about killing people in Irak/Afghanistan/Syria/Bosnia etc.?

    We should leave politics out of technology...
    fair point, I suppose naming any project after its author is a little egotistic

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Poland
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by D0pamine View Post
    fair point, I suppose naming any project after its author is a little egotistic
    Egoistic or not, it was his right to name his work however he liked.

    BTW the same is with Linux and nobody complains.

    I personally like this name from the beginning, and it's positively distinctive from EXT[2-4] / [A-Z][A-Z]FS names.

    It's a pity this nice FS has low chances to be mainlined. I use reiser3 and would use 4 if it was mainline.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cube View Post
    Egoistic or not, it was his right to name his work however he liked.

    BTW the same is with Linux and nobody complains..
    Not quite the same. Linus didn't actually call it Linux. He choose the name Freak. However a friend of his decided to name the ftp folder Linux and the project name became that.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cube View Post
    Egoistic or not, it was his right to name his work however he liked.

    BTW the same is with Linux and nobody complains.

    I personally like this name from the beginning, and it's positively distinctive from EXT[2-4] / [A-Z][A-Z]FS names.

    It's a pity this nice FS has low chances to be mainlined. I use reiser3 and would use 4 if it was mainline.
    to be fair linus has not killed his wife....

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    MurderFS or AssholeFS, who needs this crappy/bullshit FS? Nobody.

    Reiser: I hope you die and rot in prison, asshole. I also hope your children never visits you. Die already, you fucking imbecile/asshole.

    I hope somebody kills you if you ever get out of jail. You fucking piece of shit.

    its a good filesystem - i'd use it before ext3/4 anyday and reiser wasn't/isn't the only developer but i understand why you and others wouldn't use reiserfs...

    leaving the name as reiserfs is at the very least shitty marketing
    Last edited by D0pamine; 09-27-2012 at 07:54 PM.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    353

    Default

    like i said - a name change is just a suggestion.....

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    379

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by asdx View Post
    A name change won't save ReiserFS. People will still associate it with that asshole.

    Just let Reiser/ReiserFS die already and instead support Btrfs or another FS.
    I don't really trust things done by Oracle, once hooked to the FS it might become closed souce and then forked into all four 'cardinal points'...

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    580

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    I don't really trust things done by Oracle, once hooked to the FS it might become closed souce and then forked into all four 'cardinal points'...
    File System Design Goals and History
    Created by Chris Mason at Oracle, the initial design for Btrfs has its roots in a presentation by Ohad Rodeh about copy-on-write friendly B-tree implementations at the USENIX FAST '07 conference. Mason based the Btrfs design on his experience developing the ReiserFS file system (extent-based storage, packing of small files) and the idea to store data and metadata in B-tree structures. After several months of internal development, Btrfs was presented to the Linux community in June 2007. Since then, Oracle engineers have continued to maintain and advance its development. They work in close collaboration with many contributors from the Linux community, including engineers from Linux distributors, such as Red Hat and SUSE, and other companies, such as Dreamhost, Fujitsu, HP, IBM, and Intel. Today, Btrfs is included in the mainline Linux kernel and is gaining popularity through several Linux distributions, including Oracle Linux.
    Chris Mason, the principal author of the Btrfs filesystem, has left Oracle for solid-state enterprise-level storage specialists Fusion-io. While at Fusion-io, which also employs Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak as its chief scientist, Mason says he will continue maintaining and developing the advanced Linux filesystem.
    So yeah. It's a project that has been open source under GPL since 2007; that has been included in mainline Linux kernel since 2009; whose creator has switched companies; that doesn't have contributor license agreements. Oracle couldn't possibly make it closed source even if they wanted not to mention that it would make absolutely no sense for them.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs
    http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/ar...s-1695246.html
    http://www.h-online.com/open/news/it...e-1612793.html

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    353

    Default

    To be honest I only use reiserfs for my own personal use.. it is rock solid and i've never had any issues other than the fact that one of the developers is a murdering son-bitch...

    to say its a shit filesystem is just wrong - it isn't!! to say i dont want that wife murdering bastards code running on my system is fair enough though

    hence my suggestion to change the name and do what the GPL allows us to do...

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,994

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by disi View Post
    I don't really trust things done by Oracle, once hooked to the FS it might become closed souce and then forked into all four 'cardinal points'...
    Guess what? Btrfs is mainline, part of the Linux kernel. There is absolutely nothing that Oracle can possibly do. They can't change the license on it, they can't close source it, the only possibility for them is that THEY could fork it.

    Unlike openoffice, where libreoffice had to be forked away from Oracle (and was actually a very pleasant forking, if I do say so...), btrfs would NOT have to be forked to remain in Linux.

    So if Oracle decides that they no longer want to contribute, btrfs will still be there with contributions from everyone else.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •