On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 10:15 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab <stroetmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Dear Alli, >> >> Well, as you noted at the end of your reply, it is polite to reply to >> answers. Maybe you can be the one to start. >> > > What am I doing since months? You didn't reply to the questions for the first time and some things are still not clear to me. The questions were simple and yet you for some reason seem to hide something. >> >> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Christian Stroetmann OntoLab >> <stroetmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>> >>> Hello Alli,: >>> >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> I don't know the background of OntoLabs >>>> >>> >>> OntoLab. There can only be one. ;) >>> >>>> >>>> and even when I googled and >>>> read something in teh archives, I haven't learned much. I would like >>>> to ask a few questions. >>>> 1. @Christian: have you done any actual development >>>> >>> >>> I did a further development, which is based on R4 but transforms it to >>> something different/new. Besides some other issue this new storage system >>> was given a new name, a process which is common in the open source area >>> (examples can be given on request). >>> >> >> It is common to give it a completly different name in case there are >> some legal issues, for example Gaim -> Pidgin (AIM legal problem). > > Okay >> >> It >> is common to give a name back-referencing the original project you are >> forking, for example Go-OO (enhanced OpenOffice.org which tries to >> cooperate with the original project). > > Okay >> >> But I'm sure that you can give >> examples of forks that chose distinct names to tell the two projects >> apart (Mambo - Joomla). > > Is it a typo: Can give or can't give? Can give. >> >> I would not say that one or another custom is >> more common. >> > > I don't understand this remark. All your possibilies you enumerated does say > the same: It is common for a reason to give something a new name. And my for > simplicity of discussion not named real examples are a database named X as > the foundation and the same database with transaction enhancement but named > Y. Than the same database X and another version of this database with other > goodies now named Z. A one liner on the websites of Y and Z, which is > referencing database X, and ready. A real world example (I can look after > the real names in my archive, if you really need to know them). Usually you choose a familiar name to give credit to the original project and a distinct name to distinguish yourself from the original project, because you're heading in a different direction. You took the very same code, did nothing, but chose a completely different name because of an event concerning only the main developer, not the project itself. Strange. But I don't really care that much for the name, even though I think it signifies the real problem. >>>> >>>> or have you just >>>> renamed the filesystem, created a webpage with feature highlight and >>>> gave no credit to original developers except for NOT explicitly >>>> renaming the files you are mirroring? In the text there is no mention >>>> of Reiser4 even though it in fact is Reiser4. Why? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> See above. And it was discussed in mailing-lists to rename it due to a >>> special issue around a person, which let all main sponsors to jump of the >>> bandwagon. In this respect the new name was also meant to restore again >>> the >>> acceptance for the foundational filesystem. >>> >> >> I think that the "special issue" is not exactly what caused somebody >> to leave; > > The reaction to leave were a more than clear answer. >> >> I still use reiser4 simply because it is a very good >> filesystem. > > Yes, okay. But the opinions in this case were 50 to 50. You say, that you > belong to the group of persons, who are interested in the filesystem. I > belong to the other group, and for us the context and the persons around a > project are important concerns. Only a short reminder: The "special issue" > was not stealing some candies. Yes, and it had nothing to do with the filesystem. Just a short reminder. >> >> Also, you didn't say what development other then renaming >> and setting up a webpage and stuff have you done. > > Sorry, but this is wrong. I do understand that my project is highly complex, > but experts understand directly the genius solution, eg. universities in > Germany have arranged the education in Computer Sciences around nearly all > of the mentioned themes/items on the OntoLinux webpage. I think it will take > 10 to 15 years to see for persons not deeply involved in these areas of > Informatics how elegant and progressive my development really is. I don't care all that much for your project (sorry), when I browsed through the webpage (software/hardware) I saw links to other projects (T2, LFS, Gentoo, other Linux distributions, ..., hardware platforms, ...) but I didn't get the main idea, what is it all about. Is it some unification project? Is it a distribution? I guess this is beyond this mailing list. BUT - I asked about the filesystem. I don't need to understand the whole project to understand if you have done some development on the filesystem or not. So have you? And what development have you done? >> >> Sure, you can say it >> because you didn't want someone to steal from you. But THAT is >> definitely not a common opensource process. > > Yes, because it is not a common solution. It is a filesystem. There are many other filesystems. many of them are targeted for specific purposes. many of them do what reiser4 was doing and none of the opensource behaves like that. See btrfs wiki - it is an open project with ideas publicly available online so that everyone can steal from them. Why can't you do this? >> >> And there is no original >> code I could download from you. >> > > Yes, but only until it is better known and accepted. After these the bad > guys can't steal anymore. How can it be better known and accepted when it is not available? Also, I take this as a "no", because really, what good it is to the reiser4 project when you don't give the changes back? BTW aren't you obligated by the GPL licence? I'm not really sure about this but AFAIK that is how it works. >>>> >>>> 2. @Christian: What did you have in mind when you set the page up? >>>> >>>> >>> >>> See above. And at that time there was no project page for R4. As I >>> mentioned >>> also this happened before the source code was archieved at kernel.org. >>> >> >> Before reiser4 patches were available from kernel.org they were >> available from namesys. > > Yes, as long as the company namesys was running. >> >> Then there was time when it was available from >> both sources and then namesys went down. > > No, AFAIK that is wrong. I was using reiser4 for quite a long time and believe me, I would have stopped if it wasn't available online. But there is no way of proving this is true or that it is not. >> >> So you set this up at the >> time when namesys webpage (and company) was still functional? This >> makes me wonder even more why would you set up your own page when >> there was a company developing the filesystem. >> > > Please see above. >>>> >>>> What features were you going to work on if Edward cooperated with you >>>> >>>> >>> >>> It's over. I only take part in the discussion, because I would like other >>> people to know my motivations. >>> >> >> Well, that might be why I put in the past tense. So please answer me, >> what features were you going to work on? >> > > General functionality and common development, the hardlink problem (which is > after Al Viro one of the NO MAINLINE FOR REISER4 problems), a potential > solution for the cyclic dependance problem, some ideas for the plug-in > architecture problem (which is also a NO MAINLINE FOR REISER4 problem), the > described Semantic (World Wide) Web transformation, and much more. Some of those were bug fixes. I believe you had to deal with them to use the filesystem for your own project. Did you send the patches back to this ML? I really don't know because I signed to the ML only a few months ago, that's why I'm asking. >>>> >>>> (as you say he refused to; I don't know the history so please excuse >>>> me everybody)? >>>> >>> >>> In another thread I publicated the e-mail, which was sent by me to the >>> maintainer. I got no answer until today. Than Jason asked for the actual >>> maintainer and mentioned that he also send an e-mail. Later we found out >>> that a maintainer for R4 really exists. >>> >>>> >>>> For instance there are three things I'm missing in >>>> reiser4: defragmentation tool, resize tool, xattrs. I haven't learned >>>> from the text what YOU wanted to work on. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yes, I described it only so far, that the open source community has no >>> problems with patents by the large companies. The details of my work are >>> described between the lines. I'm sorry for not giving all details or a >>> better description, but there are some really bad guys in th IT-circus >>> running around. >>> >> >> I really don't know about any other project that would use this >> process and it looks cheesy. > > Sorry, that is a personal problem. See also above. >> >> And I don't know about patents, > > Sorry, but you don't have insight into this technological area. If I tell > you that the situation is like I say, than you should trust me. Most people don't accept this as an argument and neither do I. If your reasons are real, then you are can tell me. Even say something you think I wouldn't understand. I'm not dumb, I can read and use google. >> >> for >> example the btrfs filesystem is implementing a lot of features used in >> commercial filesystems and they don't seem to have any problems. > > Oh, please, there are many reasons for this, eg. old patents, no patents, > open source, bought patents by the opensource community, and so on. To your > btrfs example: I'm sure that Oracle has thoroughly looked at potential > patent problems. I don't get your point. If you have problems because patents do not exist yet and you've had a freat idea, you can publish it or patent it, simply in some way make it known that it is your idea. No problem in telling us in this case. If there are patents that you would like to use then you have to deal with it, but it is still nothing to prevent you from telling us. So what is the problem? Again, you didn't answer when I asked you to be specific. Instead you are suggesting I wouldn't understand. Maybe I wouldn't, but first you have to give me a chance. >> >> So >> could you please be more specific, either in explaining the features >> or the reasons why you don't want to/can't publush them? >> > > See above. I do know who is taking everything from other projects and is > using it for its business without referencing the sources (no names will be > given here). You can send me a personal email, I'm curious. Still you are using code that was largely connected with the person of Hans Reiser and it is rude and impolite not to give him credit for this. Maybe everything you're doing is legal, but it doesn't mean it is not rude. >>>> >>>> 3. Everybody else: Could you please point me somewhere I can read >>>> about this whole history? >>>> >>> >>> The history of R4 or this special thread? >>> >> >> The history of reiser4, you, OntoLab. I just want a link to where this >> problem started. >> > > The history, todo-lists, manuals, helping documents, and the other items of > R4 are scattered in the internet. I wanted to collect them on the proposed > project page. > My opinions are given in this mailing-list. > OntoLab is the name of the laboratory. The project is named OntoLinux. The > storage system can be found in the Components section. Also, you must be at > least familiar to the bare bone with everything linked in the Software and > Hardware lists. OK, thanks. >>>> >>>> I believe that Edward and others have good >>>> reasons to act the way they do (and I think they have the full right >>>> to), but I would really like to read on this. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> No, I have the opinion that R4 is a GPL'ed code and that the open source >>> development community, especially around Linux, has established some >>> other >>> kinds of "rules" to work together. One of this rule is to answer >>> questions >>> or to say her/his opinion directly to someone else. But this is in fact >>> one >>> of the points in discussion too. >>> >> >> Sure. But from what I've seen it looks like they did in the past and >> don't consider it necessary now, because repeating the same thing over >> again would be a waste of time. That's why I want to read the first >> mails about this. >> > > Have fun searching, finding, reading, and understanding. It took me some > portions of precious time. >>>> >>>> Hope I didn't offended anybody and BTW it would actually help to have >>>> a stable hosting for wiki/trac or something that like system and a >>>> centralized place for the tools, it's manuals, some howtos, roadmap, >>>> todo and this kind of stuff. kernel.org is not exactly the best place >>>> for this AFAIK. Just my two cents. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Yes, that is exactly the point. And there are so many other unsolved >>> items. >>> Last but not least I do repeat a question a nice person asked me: How >>> want >>> one developer alone manage the code? (It doesn't matter if there are in >>> reality 5 or 10 developers.) >>> >> >> I was talking about setting a project page. > > Please, read the mailing-list first. >> >> You were setting up a >> project page in a context of a completely different company (probably >> owned by you) with a different name, with no useful information on >> future development (just a load of "it will be great" text). There is >> a difference between the two. >> > > Please, read the mailing-list first. All different versions were proposed. > And I really do apologize for repeating, but: We are running in circles > since 2 or 3 years. :-D >> >> Have a nice day, >> al-Quaknaa >> > > Have fun > Christian *<:o) > al-Quaknaa -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe reiserfs-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
