On Fri, 28 May 1999, Andrew Brown wrote:

> i meant to imply that under the same set of operations and uses (ie,
> creating, moving and deleting a few files or something like that), the
> two would be virtually indistinguishable.

Ffs in, lfs maybe, ext2fs out ... perhaps you're trying to say, "Has been
proven to fully support traditional Unix filesystem semantics, by having
been an integrated part of BSD Un*x for some years"?

I must admit that when I wrote out that hierarchy I was subconsciously
dividing the traditional-ufs-semantics non-volatile filesystems into "BSD"
and "non-BSD" categories in my head...LFS got lumped in with "BSD" because
it came from Berkeley (um, and because I'm working on it, so I *want* it
to be "native" :^)

But I'll have to agree with Chris that from an engineering perspective
there does not seem to be much point in dividing the disk filesystems into
us/them categories....

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Konrad Schroder          http://www.hitl.washington.edu/people/perseant/
System Administrator                        perseant@hitl.washington.edu
Human Interface Technology Lab                    Voice: +1.206.616.1478
Box 352142, University of Washington, 98195, USA    FAX: +1.206.543.5380