Re: reiser4 plugins

From: David Masover (ninja_at_slaphack.com)
Date: 07/01/05

  • Next message: David Masover: "Re: reiser4 plugins"
    Date:	Fri, 01 Jul 2005 03:08:58 -0500
    To: David Weinehall <tao@acc.umu.se>
    
    

    David Weinehall wrote:
    > On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 04:58:20PM +0300, Markus Törnqvist wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, Jun 29, 2005 at 09:50:27AM -0400, Douglas McNaught wrote:
    >>
    >>>I'll just note that the "applications bundled as directories" stuff on
    >>>MacOS/NextStep is done completely in userspace--as far as the kernel
    >>>is concerned, "Mail.app" is a regular directory. The file manager
    >>>handles recognition and invocation of application bundles (and there
    >>>is an 'open' shell command that does the same thing).
    >>
    >>Note that MacOS has the monopoly on what they ship, Linux has a
    >>motherload of file managers and window systems and all.
    >>
    >>What pisses me off is the fact that Gnome and friends implement
    >>their own incompatible-with-others VFS's and automounters and
    >>stuff.
    >>
    >>Surely supporting this in the kernel and extending the LSB
    >>to require this is the best step to take without infringing
    >>anyone's freedom as such.
    >>
    >>*still pissed off about having to hassle an automatic mount*
    >
    >
    > GNOME and KDE run on operating systems that run other kernels than
    > Linux, hence they have to implement their own userland VFS anyway.
    > Adding this to the Linux kernel won't help them one bit, unless
    > we can magically convince Sun to add it to Solaris, all different
    > BSD:s to add it to their kernels, etc. Not going to happen.
    > An effort to get GNOME and KDE to unify their VFS:s would be
    > far more benificial,

    Than what? Creating a unified VFS which I can access from Bash, and
    which obsoletes both GNOME and KDE's VFSes except in their presentation?

    > FreeDesktop is doing a lot of work to make GNOME, KDE, and other
    > DE:s interoperate as much as possible. Support their initiative
    > instead of trying to get a monstrosity (albeit a very cool one,
    > conceptually) into the kernel. Sure, it could be made to work,
    > but not without dropping our Unixness.

    (I'm talking about the metafs (/meta) idea, which isn't nearly as much a
    monstrocity, and doesn't kill our unixness, it enhances it.)
    -
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
    More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
    Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/


  • Next message: David Masover: "Re: reiser4 plugins"