bofh wrote:
Hmm, there's been recent noise about opensolaris being licensed under
gpl v3. I'm curious if gpl v3 is "compatible" with the bsd license?
Stop.
GPL != BSD
Regardless of the version!
Please do not start a flame war PLEASE!
Best,
Daniel
On 1/11/07, Stuart Henderson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 2007/01/10 20:45, bofh wrote:
> However, it won't be easy porting it. It's been out in opensolaris
> for over a year+, but only showed up in solaris 10 6/06. However the
> linux folks have to do it through fuse
that's because it's not
On 2007/01/10 20:45, bofh wrote:
> However, it won't be easy porting it. It's been out in opensolaris
> for over a year+, but only showed up in solaris 10 6/06. However the
> linux folks have to do it through fuse
that's because it's not compatible with their license (use it and you
can't make
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 10:23:31PM +0100, chefren wrote:
> A few people mail things like "submit a patch" but those simple minds
> don't understand that there is nothing to patch here.
those are usually the minds that make openbsd possible
anyway, i will shut up and wait for the day you have cod
On 1/10/07, Michael Jensen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 1/10/07, chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> As far as I see it we have to design something beyond FFS before it's
> possible to start coding at all.
Anyways, where would you conduct this design and thinking.
I'm curious, taking away som
On 1/10/07, chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 01/10/07 22:00, Nick Guenther wrote:
> I'm interested in this topic too, but I know that misc@ is not the
> place for it.
How do you know? I can see lot's of people are interested in it.
> Anyway, if you want to play with different filesystems
On 01/10/07 22:00, Nick Guenther wrote:
I'm interested in this topic too, but I know that misc@ is not the
place for it.
How do you know? I can see lot's of people are interested in it.
> Anyway, if you want to play with different filesystems
go to linux.
I'm not interested in Linux and I
On 1/10/07, chefren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 01/10/07 01:21, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
> Could you guys please take this completely useless discussion off-list ?
> It has absolutely zero value to anyone running or developing OpenBSD.
Ah, it's clueless to try to think beond FFS and aim a
On 01/10/07 01:21, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
Could you guys please take this completely useless discussion off-list ?
It has absolutely zero value to anyone running or developing OpenBSD.
Ah, it's clueless to try to think beond FFS and aim a little higher?
+++chefren
Brian Candler wrote:
Well, maybe there is something useful that can be salvaged :-)
maybe, maybe not.
(3) Further to the above: some form of shared filesystem where the remote
copy can be mounted read-write and changes propagate both ways. This can
land you into problems when conflicting off-
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 02:47:16PM +, Brian Candler wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:21:45AM +0900, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
> > Could you guys please take this completely useless discussion off-list ?
> > It has absolutely zero value to anyone running or developing OpenBSD.
>
> Well, m
On Wed, Jan 10, 2007 at 09:21:45AM +0900, Mathieu Sauve-Frankel wrote:
> Could you guys please take this completely useless discussion off-list ?
> It has absolutely zero value to anyone running or developing OpenBSD.
Well, maybe there is something useful that can be salvaged :-)
I think the issu
Could you guys please take this completely useless discussion off-list ?
It has absolutely zero value to anyone running or developing OpenBSD.
--
Mathieu Sauve-Frankel
On 1/9/07 10:17 PM, Tony Abernethy wrote:
chefren wrote:
On 1/9/07 1:22 PM, Richard P. Welty wrote:
..
yes, it seems to me that the author of this proposal doesn't really
understand the huge gap between a conventional file system and
a full up RDBMS.
I do.
You don't.
I do.
How do you h
chefren wrote:
>
> On 1/9/07 1:22 PM, Richard P. Welty wrote:
>
> ..
>
> > yes, it seems to me that the author of this proposal doesn't really
> > understand the huge gap between a conventional file system and
> > a full up RDBMS.
>
> I do.
>
You don't.
How do you handle physical defects in the sto
On 1/9/07 1:22 PM, Richard P. Welty wrote:
..
yes, it seems to me that the author of this proposal doesn't really
understand the huge gap between a conventional file system and
a full up RDBMS.
I do.
let file systems be good file systems, and let the RDBMS or OO DBMS
be a good DBMS.
Then
Brian Candler wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:14:12PM +0100, chefren wrote:
I want to eliminate the need for Oracle or whatever other databases...
Then IMO you have impossible conflicting goals:
- something which is small and fast (as it is to be an integral part of
the O/S)
- somet
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 10:14:12PM +0100, chefren wrote:
> >Firstly, it eliminates the choice that we currently have: say mysql versus
> >Oracle versus BerkeleyDB versus pgsql etc.
>
> And why do you forget the single OpenBSD choice named: FFS?
Well, it's not the only one, although probably the b
On Tuesday 09 January 2007 05:14, chefren wrote:
> On 1/8/07 4:27 PM, Brian Candler wrote:
> > On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:07:38PM +0100, chefren wrote:
> >
> >
> > Are you saying that the O/S and filesystem layer should entirely
> > *replace* the need for a database?
>
> Yes.
Is this going to be a
chefren wrote
> To get it started we should add some hooks of course, and when it's
> working FFS should be dumped. Of course the database file system can
> still save "blobs", being Oracle database or whatever.
>
How do you use this elegant filesystem to bootstrap
the OS which handles this ele
On 1/8/07 4:27 PM, Brian Candler wrote:
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:07:38PM +0100, chefren wrote:
Are you saying that the O/S and filesystem layer should entirely *replace*
the need for a database?
Yes.
If so, I can't believe that will ever happen.
Firstly, it eliminates the choice that w
On Mon, Jan 08, 2007 at 01:07:38PM +0100, chefren wrote:
> >(1) You won't see any benefit until *all* applications have been rewritten
> >to use these new semantics instead of traditional ones. That means new
> >versions of oracle, mysql etc.
>
> Yes and no, the database filesystem should have an
On 1/8/07 11:43 AM, Brian Candler wrote:
..
(1) You won't see any benefit until *all* applications have been rewritten
to use these new semantics instead of traditional ones. That means new
versions of oracle, mysql etc.
Yes and no, the database filesystem should have an own SQL layer. It's
Very Off Topic...
On 1/7/07 1:11 AM, Joachim Schipper wrote:
Or did you mean something else entirely?
I mean lets start store and retrieve data in a truly universal way.
Now about every different program stores data in files in it's own
database format, in files that are only readable by t
24 matches
Mail list logo
