Re: Definitions

[Marc Lehmann]

On Thu, Aug 10, 2000 at 10:14:43PM +0200, Martin Dalecki <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Please DON'T have this accident! There are JFS and XFS on the way - both
> are more proven in the real world and there is a *much* higher wight behind

You overlooked the fact that JFS and XFS are both (linux version) not at
all proven and are either alpha or beta quality code.

> first... (QUOTAS - where are you there?).

AFAICS the linux-kernel api does not currently provide a faine-enough grained
support for quotas - the kernel does quota in block's whereas reiserfs
requires bytes.

A fix seems to be on the way, but quota clearly is not there yet.

> I think both of them are a much much better design and what is more

This is fine. But wouldn't even you agree that others could decide that
issue for themselves? If XFS and JFS are so much better the people whi
switched to reiserfs will switch to xfs/jfs/whatever as well if they are
better.

-- 
      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [e-mail] |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |
                                                         |