Subject: Re: union filesystem problems
To: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
From: Todd Vierling <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/11/1999 11:37:30
On 11 May 1999, Chris G. Demetriou wrote:
: Realistically, given their current level of functionality, what
: fraction of users find _any_ real utility from NULLFS, KERNFS, FDESC,
: PORTAL, UMAPFS, PROCFS, or UNION? How many users actually care about
Procfs, most definitely. Saved my ass with `ps' twice now.
: the UFS QUOTA code, or XNS, CCITT, or ISO networking? It's not an
: insignificant number, but i'd bet there's a high correlation between
: that set of users and the set that has a strong understanding of what
: to put in a kernel config.
Yes; however, the QUOTA code is likely used by far more people than the
CCITT/ISO code. (I was meaning to ask why it wasn't in an alpha GENERIC.)
Now ... yes, I agree that we should have a way of doing an "everything"
kernel different from a "support most things" kernel, but we need to
STANDARDIZE THE FORMAT of the bloody config files (can someone say pmax?).
Also, standardize what MI options go in the "support most things" kernel.
We also need to make sure these things are kept up to date, and that the
"support most things" kernel has *everything* listed in the "everything"
kernel, with the appropriate things commented out, not "missing".
I'll note that there's a few dozen useful kernel config knobs not listed
in any GENERIC kernel out there.
-- Todd Vierling (Personal email@example.com; Bus. firstname.lastname@example.org)