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
22 matches
Mail list logo
