On Tue, Apr 01, 2003 at 06:40:26PM +0200, Staffan Thomen wrote:
> 
>  Oops, forgot to send it to the list, not you, sorry emre.
> 
> On Mon, 31 Mar 2003 13:53:04 -0600 (CST) <emre@asper.org> wrote:
> 
> > 
> > > So do the words "SGI is actively working on it" inspire me?
> > > Not overwhelmingly. These are the folks who came out with a $5000
> > > Windows workstation.  It was better than the $2000 ones from every
> > > vendor in the world, so they did manage to sell 4 or 5 of them :)
> > > Today they love Linux.
> > 
> > Well, of course SGI does some very stupid/silly things, but they're
> > just trying to stay alive in this business.  The reason why I
> > mentioned xfs is because of the fact that SGI actually ported 100% of
> > xfs's features to linux.  So the XFS that's running on linux right now
> > is the same one running in IRIX.
> 
>  Just butting in to mention that this is not entirely true, being that
>  the sgi linux xfs drivers are xfs version 1 only, while IRIX above 6.5.5
>  has version 2 available to them.

That's false.  In fact, most of what everyone's said in this thread about
XFS directly contradicts either the publically available facts about XFS
or recent, direct statements by SGI (including by the XFS team lead and
other XFS developers) about XFS.

It's very unlikely that you'll ever see XFS in any non-GPLed operating
system.  If you want to know why, all you need to do is quickly peruse
the archives of the public XFS mailing lists; the question comes up
quite frequently.  At the very least, anyone trying to port even the
GPLed XFS code to any operations system other than Linux would have to
work entirely without support from SGI -- which is likely to be
extremely frustrating, if not impossible -- and with the understanding
that there is essentially *zero* likelihood of SGI ever allowing the
code to be released any way except under the GPL.

Thor