> On Sun, 2008-04-13 at 12:37 +0200, Miklos Szeredi wrote: > > There's one thing which makes fuse a slightly better candidate for > > applications where the number of users is low: stability. Unless you > > or your users test the hell out of your filesystem, there always a > > chance that some bugs will remain. These rarely bring down the whole > > system, but it usually requires a reboot to let you continue using the > > Oopsing fs. > > I think it's a slippery slope from that to rewriting Linux as a > microkernel. You say that as if a microkernel had _no_ advantages. Which isn't true: it's just a trade between performance and encapsulation. What I was saying, that if there are few users, and so the tester base is limited, then they _might_ just be better off with a slower, but more stable solution. I'm not advocating moving ext3 to fuse. And I didn't advocate moving ntfs to fuse, still that was done and the resulting filesystem at the moment happens to outperform the kernel one in every respect ;) Miklos -- 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
