> would you really want to trust your data to a filesystem that is closed? > To a filesystem that isn't easily supported by newer kernels (or even > kernels with hot security fixes)? I at least won't. it depends. millions of people also trust their data to ntfs, and that is closed source, too. i also need to run microsoft servers - sure - i`d be happy if i could replace them with linux..... with the kernel-updates you are right: i don`t want to be dependend of a vendor - if i update my kernel and cogofs breaks because of this, i don`t want to wait for the vendor to fix this. it maybe not easy to develop a filesystem, but if i look at the cogofs homepage, the official version is still for kernel 2.4 and a version for 2.6 is just ahead after 2.6 being in business for quite some time..... > > the vendor is developing quite nice stuff for linux, but it`s understandable that he needs to live from that - so no open source. > > There's enough people who make money on open source.... that's not an > argument. i cannot tell for myself how hard it is to make your daily bread and butter from opensource, i`m no programmer and never worked self employed. > > is there any good collection of arguments to make a vendor re-think his strategy and open up the source of their application? > > One is to suggest him to talk to a good lawyer... often people who do > binary modules come back from that white in the face and change things > quickly ;) Another one is just refusing to buy from him until it's open. > If everyone does that.... he'll get the message. sounds a little bit evangelistic, doesn`t it ? yes there is an open-source world, but there is a closed source world, too. i wished everything was open source, but unfortunately that isn`t how this world works.... i don`t want to restart that "binary is all evil"-thread again, all i want is linux having a production ready filesystem with transparent compression. came across a real interesting thread at: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=113934168811645&w=2 please mind the TLD of the author`s email adress roland > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- > Von: Arjan van de Ven <arjan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Gesendet: 14.11.06 09:09:04 > An: devzero@xxxxxx > CC: linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Betreff: Re: ShaolinMicro CogoFS > On Mon, 2006-11-13 at 23:20 +0100, devzero@xxxxxx wrote: > > Unfortunately it`s closed source - > > would you really want to trust your data to a filesystem that is closed? > To a filesystem that isn't easily supported by newer kernels (or even > kernels with hot security fixes)? I at least won't. > > > the vendor is developing quite nice stuff for linux, but it`s understandable that he needs to live from that - so no open source. > > There's enough people who make money on open source.... that's not an > argument. > > > is there any good collection of arguments to make a vendor re-think his strategy and open up the source of their application? > > One is to suggest him to talk to a good lawyer... often people who do > binary modules come back from that white in the face and change things > quickly ;) Another one is just refusing to buy from him until it's open. > If everyone does that.... he'll get the message. > > > > -- > if you want to mail me at work (you don't), use arjan (at) linux.intel.com > Test the interaction between Linux and your BIOS via http://www.linuxfirmwarekit.org > ______________________________________________________________________________ "Ein Herz für Kinder" - Ihre Spende hilft! Aktion: www.deutschlandsegelt.de Unser Dankeschön: Ihr Name auf dem Segel der 1. deutschen America's Cup-Yacht! - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
