Dear Alli;
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.
Please, that this is a thread. So I won't repeat again and again what
was said before in this mailing-list.
The questions were simple
I gave answers.
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.
That's your opinion, which I can't follow.
You took the
very same code,
Yes, that's right. And I explained in this thread why.
did nothing,
No, that's wrong. The development of software consists of different
phases and differnet works. I think I did much and explained why there
was no patch or code delievered until today.
but chose a completely different name
because of an event concerning only the main developer, not the
project itself.
No, that's wrong and I can't understand why you bring it again. I
answered this subject in my last e-mail (its written some lines below
"50 to 50").
Strange. But I don't really care that much for the
name, even though I think it signifies the real problem.
Yes, and again: I explained it in the e-mail before (its written some
lines below "50 to 50"). But I also offered in the past the R4 naming
compromise. So, now I do ask: Where are the steps in my direction?
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.
But with the development, and that's enough. A would like at this point
also to repeat: You have this opinion, and I have the other position.
This leads again to my question: Where do get a compromise?
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?
Yes, it is an integrating distribution.
Is it a distribution? I guess this is beyond this
mailing list.
Okay
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?
I answered it in the e-mails before and clearified it in this e-mail.
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.
No, it is more an integrating system with a Semantic Storage.
There are many other filesystems. many of them are
targeted for specific purposes.
Yes
many of them do what reiser4 was doing
No, that's wrong. There is only R4. The other storage systems, which are
comparable, are based on a database (that means a propritary
filestructure) or are not really functioning.
and none of the opensource behaves like that.
That's no argument. See it as something new.
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?
No one steals from eg. btrfs. Someone takes from a project items and the
source project is referenced. But this only happens if a project is
known to a wider audience. And it's much of work to explain it, to
discuss it with other persons, and as I explained experts do understand
my solution.
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?
See it as the common process of publicating a whitepaper. There is now
the general/theoretical concept publicated.
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?
Please, read above
BTW aren't you
obligated by the GPL licence? I'm not really sure about this but AFAIK
that is how it works.
Yes, and guess what I have clearified it on the OntoLinux website. Also,
this isn't a point of discussion due to the clearness of the subject.
Btw.: The GPL says not that I have to make my source public. It says, if
I publicate it, then I have to give others the rights following the GPL.
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.
At that time I did what I did the webpage of namesys was gone and there
was no code on kernel.org. Otherwise I wouldn't have done the mirroring.
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.
Yes
Did you send the patches back
to this ML?
No, because for my work I don't need patches. I only need a
bootstrapping system. That means it doesn't matter if I use software,
which is 2 years old or brandnew.
I really don't know because I signed to the ML only a few
months ago, that's why I'm asking.
I don't want to offend you if I say that I got this impression some
e-mails before.
(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.
Okay, I do know this common situation.
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.
Okay, but at this point I have to say that you need more than 15 years
of learning, researching, and googling to get the needed knowledge for
understanding and following discussion. Besides this, you should find
some really good arguments, why I should write endless e-mails. What you
want is the following: You want to drive a car, but before you start the
engine Albert Einstein should explain why the atoms of the chassis hold
together. You are not dumb, I'm sure you understand maybe everything,
but we haven't the time. So you can trust me or in another field like
the Linux kernel other persons like I do.
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?
The patent things were said in conjunction with your example filesystem
btrfs.
Again, you didn't answer when I asked you to be specific.
I answered this in the e-mail before.
Instead you are suggesting I
wouldn't understand.
No
Maybe I wouldn't, but first you have to give me a
chance.
Yes, and I repeat: You have to know at least everything to the bare bone
that is listed in the software and hadware list on the OntoLinux website.
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
No, there were other persons, companies, and institutes also in the game.
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
Sincerely
Christian *<:o)
--
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
