Re: Desktop Kernel Stuff

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 21:35, Sander Vesik wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> >>Commerical UNIX's now have to worry about being compatible with Linux,
> >>rather than the other way around.  And most facilities we would want
> >>are usefull for other things, in any case.
> >>
> >>So I no longer believe that getting kernel changes for the desktop
> >>is a futile exercise anymore, the way it was a few years ago.
> > 
> > 
> > It isnt the kernel changes that are the big problem. Linux and *BSD will
> > adopt sane changes and even work together on them sometimes. I'm sure
> > the Sun guys are taking notes too.
> > 
> > The problem is legacy infrastructure - NFS has no EA's for example or
> > file notifications
> 
> on the compatibility / legacy side its not so much things like NFS but 
> things like 'hey, what do you mean my glibc is 3 years old, it worlks just 
> fine'. Seriously - there is no reason to assume people will do base system 
> upgardes on a different cycle than the usual 3-4 year PC upgrade cycle. 
> This is going to increasingly affect what is easily deplyoable by vendors 
> and supportabel by open source projects as a minimum system level.
> 
> also, its odd seeing people want EA when gnome doesn't really even do 
> anything useful (or cope with) just plain old ACL-s.

plain old ACLs aren't yet in the stable kernel tree (2.4.x). That's why
they aren't used. If you were to send a patch to have them supported in
gnome-vfs, relying on an API/ABI stable software, I'm sure it would be
merged.

-- 
Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>