--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> You might look into SFS by David Mazieres, some
> concepts in it are
> likely to interest you.
Thank you for your suggestion. I've taken a look at
SFS (http://www.fs.net/sfswww/), and I like its
emphasis on user-friendliness and security. It's a
toss-up
--- Peter Staubach <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Vlad C. wrote:
>
> >--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Please treat at greater length how your proposal
> >>differs from NFS.
> >>
> >>
&
--- Hans Reiser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Please treat at greater length how your proposal
> differs from NFS.
I think NFS is not flexible enough because:
1) NFS requires synchronization of passwd files or
NIS/LDAP to authenticate users (which themselves
require root access on both server and
Recent discussion on ReiserFS 4 has focused on the
advantages and disadvantages of VFS at the kernel
level versus the Desktop Environment (DE) level. I
believe network locations should be administered by
the kernel in a proposed framework called Linux
On-Demand Network Access (LODNA), which would a
4 matches
Mail list logo
