Warp wrote:
> Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
>> The only "condescending" bit was the comment about fragmented files.
> 
>   Maybe you should choose your post subjects better. "Cool. Linux to
> reinvent NTFS" sounds like mockery. 

Actually, I'd originally written that even worse, changed it, crashed my 
mail reader, and then rewrote it this way. So yeah, it was maybe a little 
more smarmy than needs to be, but that's why it has a smiley. But you're 
right, I didn't look closely at the subject line when answering you.

I probably wouldn't have worded it that way had we not had several big 
discussions here recently about the reason Linux doesn't need any of those 
features NTFS supports.

Of course, the guy has been working on it for 8 years at least with big gaps 
in time, so the fact he's just now starting to catch up isn't a reflection 
on him.

> In general, "reinventing" something,
> is usually a negative term, or intended to mock something for doing
> something which other have already done long ago.

So.... stop me if I'm wrong, but isn't 95% of Linux doing something which 
others have already done long ago?  I mean, doesn't the very name ending in 
"x" indicate it's in some respects reinventing UNIX?  If "reinventing" is a 
bad term, then I'm afraid there's far more than Tux3 that's a problem there. 
Sure, there are probably technical bits inside that are new and exciting 
(like /proc or so?), but rc.local and /etc/fstab have been around since 
before sockets were invented.

I don't see "reinventing" as a bad word, tho, particularly if you're 
reimplementing proprietary ideas in open software. "Reimplementing NTFS" 
doesn't mean quite the same thing, and most of the other subject lines that 
were informative that I thought about were too long.

Do I get to complain every time someone points out where features of Windows 
were stolen from Apple or VMS or ...? :-)

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   The NFL should go international. I'd pay to
   see the Detroit Lions vs the Roman Catholics.

Post a reply to this message