Re: Interest in ReactOS

[Al Hartman]

Uh, guys?

Just as a potential user...

If I want a Linux Filesystem (which is INCOMPREHENSIBLE to me), I'll use Linux.

You are created an Open Sourced Windows Compatible OS.

Stick with compatibility as the first thing. THEN, if you can do something 
faster and better without breaking compatibility.... Then do it!

But, If I wanted Linux, I'm well served by hundreds of Distributions...

There is currently, not ONE Windows Compatibile Open Sourced OS.

And thanks for making one!

Al

[Rick Parrish]

Given the choice, I'd rather use ext3 or reiser-fs than NTFS. Heck, if 
the driver would work on 2K or XP, I'd use it there too.

In any case ... I think the "do the easy thing first" rule applies to 
get the most functionality out the door in the least amount of time.

-rick

[Johannes Rohr]

Am Fr, den 30.01.2004 schrieb Al Hartman um 00:55:
>   Uh, guys?
>  
>  Just as a potential user...
>  
>  If I want a Linux Filesystem (which is INCOMPREHENSIBLE to me), I'll use Linux.
>  
>  You are created an Open Sourced Windows Compatible OS.
>  
>  Stick with compatibility as the first thing. THEN, if you can do something 
>  faster and better without breaking compatibility.... Then do it!
>  
>  But, If I wanted Linux, I'm well served by hundreds of Distributions... 
I think the question is not about Linux but about having a decent file
system, allowing for user privilege separation, ACLs (plus goodies like
symlinks, sockets etc). FAT is not acceptable because it doesn't support
any permission setting (except for those crappy "attributes" which
anyone can change at any time). Furthermore, journalling file systems
are pretty much standard nowadays. NTFS has to be reverse-engeneered
which the linux NTFS developers haven't succeeded in years. Plus it's
probably covered by a host of patents.

At the same time there is a bunch of free-as-in-freedom, fully
documented and accessible file systems available, mostly coming from the
GNU/Linux universe: ReiserFS, ext3, JFS. A fresh newcomer is OpenBSF,
developed by the OpenBeOS project.

If any of them is stable and suitable, why not use it? Apps should be
filesystem agnostic. Only the kernel should bother about it. At least
this is how it generally works on GNU/Linux.

Thanks,

Johannes

>   At the same time there is a bunch of
> free-as-in-freedom, fully
>  documented and accessible file systems available, mostly coming from the
>  GNU/Linux universe: ReiserFS, ext3, JFS. A fresh newcomer is OpenBSF,
>  developed by the OpenBeOS project.
>
>  If any of them is stable and suitable, why not use it? Apps should be
>  filesystem agnostic. Only the kernel should bother about it. At least
>  this is how it generally works on GNU/Linux.
>
>  Thanks,
>
>  Johannes 
that is a very good point. when an ext3 linux samba share is mapped to a
windows drive letter, windows sees it as an ntfs partition. presumably the
whole file system could be dealt with in this way courtesy of samba code.
if this is bollocks, someone please say so, i am in way over my depth in
programming terms
les

[Robert K.]

>   
>  
>  that is a very good point. when an ext3 linux samba share is mapped to a
>  windows drive letter, windows sees it as an ntfs partition. presumably the
>  whole file system could be dealt with in this way courtesy of samba code.
>  if this is bollocks, someone please say so, i am in way over my depth in
>  programming terms
>  les 
Networked dirves are handled by so called redirectors, while "hardware" 
or i think device file systems are handled by installable file systems. 
Both of them are really hard to implement. Especially Cache manager and 
Permissions. ACLs get propagated to the object manager who makes the 
actual decisions.
The NTFS you saw is a kind of through propagation, which 
filesystem(=capabilities) the other side uses. And thus which features 
is able to handle.

>   
>  
>  _______________________________________________
>  ros-general mailing list
>  ros-general(a)reactos.com
>  http://reactos.com/mailman/listinfo/ros-general

[KJK::Hyperion]

At 13.32 30/01/2004, you wrote:

>  Apps should be filesystem agnostic. 
yes, as long as the filesystem matches the expectations of applications. 
None of the filesystem you mentioned does