[Coco] Linux RBF filesystem support

[Boisy Pitre]

This discussion highlights one of the reasons ToolShed was developed  
the way it was.  As a command-line, user state utility written in C,  
it could be easily ported from OS to OS.  FUSE puts ToolShed pretty  
much on par with a filesystem module like the RBF filesystem, so we  
have the best of both worlds.

I have been considering taking ToolShed into a new direction:  
rewriting it in Java.  Right now the pain of having to cross compile  
and juggle different versions for different platforms is a headache.   
Porting ToolShed to Java would eliminate this (though this would break  
FUSE support).  Perhaps just porting tools like rma/rlink to Java  
would be a start.  I have already started a from-scratch write of RMA  
in Java.

Regards,
Boisy G. Pitre
--
Tee-Boy
Email: boisy at tee-boy.com
Web: http://www.tee-boy.com

On Oct 20, 2008, at 7:52 PM, Chuck Youse wrote:

> On Mon, 2008-10-20 at 11:34 -0400, John W. Linville wrote:
>>
>>> Whichever ass-hat wrote that document isn't writing it for me:
>>>
>>> Executive Summary
>>> 18	-----------------
>>> 19	You think you want a stable kernel interface, but you really do  
>>> not, and
>>> 20	you don't even know it.  What you want is a stable running  
>>> driver, and
>>> 21	you get that only if your driver is in the main kernel tree.   
>>> You also
>>> 22	get lots of other good benefits if your driver is in the main  
>>> kernel
>>> 23	tree, all of which has made Linux into such a strong, stable,  
>>> and mature
>>> 24	operating system which is the reason you are using it in the  
>>> first
>>> 25	place.
>>>
>>> Total horseshit.  And for the record, the main reason why so many  
>>> people use Linux is because so many other people use Linux.  It's  
>>> as simple as that.
>>
>> Well, I'll just vaguely smile and pretend that you've said something
>> meainingful, then drop the discussion... :-)
>
> My point was
>
> 1. I do want a stable kernel interface, despite his implication that I
> don't and I'm too stupid to know better.
> 2. I do not want a stable kernel interface because I want some stupid
> driver to work.
> 3. I do not use Linux because it's a strong, stable and mature  
> operating
> system.  I use Linux because I'm forced to for various reasons under
> various circumstances.  The reasons my clients force me to use Linux  
> are
> varied and often based on incomplete information and bad assumptions.
>
> To simplify the unstable API problem as "I want my driver to work" is
> really quite narrow, and the author is on shaky ground at best.   
> Some of
> the reasons the author of the above "white paper" cites as  
> justification
> for an unstable API (e.g., alignment of structures caused by different
> versions of the compiler) are absolutely ridiculous.  The fact that I
> have to compile a kernel module against _exactly_ the kernel I am
> running - thousands of compile-time options included - is ludicrous.
> That Linux HAS thousands of compile-time options is similarly  
> ludicrous.
>
> Linux often gets the job done, but it doesn't mean it's not a big  
> piece
> of shit.  It simply has a lot of market share, which means it will
> continue to have a lot of market share.  That's the way of things.   
> But
> let's be honest and recognize that Linux gained all that initial
> traction not on technical merit, but on "religious" fervor, the
> rebellion against Microsoft, and the perception that Linux was  
> "cool" by
> a generation of kids who'd never seen anything but Windows.
>
> Ugh, I have to stop here before I start bleeding out my orifices.
>
> C.
>
>
>
> --
> Coco mailing list
> Coco at maltedmedia.com
> http://five.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/coco