Re: gnome

[Damien Miller <dmiller ilogic com au>]

On Tue, 8 Dec 1998, Jimen Ching wrote:

> My conclusion still holds; it is a mistake to take a kernel level
> API and place it in a library.  This applies only to monolithic
> kernels.  Kernels like the HURD and Plan9 are perfect for this.  But
> those kernel support the old method as well.  So in my professional
> opinion, it is wiser to stick with the old method for now, until the
> new kernel philosophies are better understood.  Putting a kernel API
> in a library is just bad design, when applied to monolithic kernel.

Why exactly is it a mistake? User-mode filesystems are certainly
nothing new. Nor are libraries abstracting functionality that an
underlying system may or may not provide.

> Also, where are all the fears coming from?  It won't work on this
> system, it won't work on that system.  Before MC was ported to
> FreeBSD, it didn't work on that system either. 

Huh? I don't think there is a hope in hell we will see tarfs          
intergrated into Linux, Solaris or Irix anytime soon.                 

Should we just forget vfs support on these platforms?

> Everyone is worried
> about all of the systems out there that doesn't support this kernel
> feature.  Why not worry about getting a good design and a functional
> environment before we worry about these systems? 

That is exactly what *is* happening. How does arriving at a standard
library, which can be layered over native VFS calls if necessary
constitue a 'bad design'?

If this was really the case libc would have to go in ther kernel!

FYI. Unix98 makes no distinction between code implemented in user
libraries with that implemented in the kernel

> Btw, the *BSD's
> does not have a problem with putting the vfs in the kernel.  So
> stop worrying.  People are porting new file systems into the OSS
> kernels all of the time.  I don't see people complaining that it
> will bloat the OS or it will make the system unstable or it will
> make maintaining the source harder or it will do this nasty thing.

You obviously haven't been reading linux-kernel. Linus has basically
stated that tarfs and friends are not welcome in the kernel.

A generic userfs might, and GNOME will be able to transparently take
advantage of it if and when it arrives.

> I didn't see this type of whining when the mtools were moved into
> the kernel.

mtools weren't moved into the kernel. [v]fatfs has a completely
different lineage.

In any case, Those Who Write The Code have spoken. Unless you can come
up with a better system that actually works, this whole discussion is
moot.

Regards,
Damien

| Damien Miller - 
| Email: dmiller@ilogic.com.au (home) or damien@ibs.com.au (work)
| WWW:   http://www.ilogic.com.au/~dmiller/