Alan Cox <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Iau, 2005-09-01 at 03:59 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > - Why the kernel needs two clustered fileystems
>
> So delete reiserfs4, FAT, VFAT, ext2, and all the other "junk".
Well, we did delete intermezzo.
I was looking for technical reasons, please.
> > - Why GFS is better than OCFS2, or has functionality which OCFS2 cannot
> > possibly gain (or vice versa)
> >
> > - Relative merits of the two offerings
>
> You missed the important one - people actively use it and have been for
> some years. Same reason with have NTFS, HPFS, and all the others. On
> that alone it makes sense to include.
Again, that's not a technical reason. It's _a_ reason, sure. But what are
the technical reasons for merging gfs[2], ocfs2, both or neither?
If one can be grown to encompass the capabilities of the other then we're
left with a bunch of legacy code and wasted effort.
I'm not saying it's wrong. But I'd like to hear the proponents explain why
it's right, please.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
| |
 |