[TUHS] Mach for i386 / Mt Xinu or other

Larry McVoy lm at mcvoy.com
Wed Feb 22 05:21:24 AEST 2017


On Tue, Feb 21, 2017 at 01:58:40PM -0500, Clem Cole wrote:
> For instance, I personally don't think ext[234] are much better that
> BFFS/UFS[12], certainly compared to MegaSafe (aka AdvFS) or XFS.   

So I was also at SGI, I know the whole XFS (and XLV) team, and I know
the code pretty well, I plugged it into NFS so that NFS could use
all that bandwidth:

http://www.mcvoy.com/lm/bitmover/lm/talks/bds.pdf

In terms of crash worthyness, ext2 was better.  I think the ext2 people
took the approach that they wanted to be as robust as dos but with 
performance.  And they made it, it's some very nice work.

> got to write his own, which was cool for a young guy at the time.  To me,
> it would have made a lot more sense because BSD was freely licensed to just
> grab the BFFS to replace Minux FS and run with it.

Nope.  And I sort of made my name working on FFS with srk, I'm a fan of
what FFS/UFS could do but ext2 went way way further.  And did so pretty
quickly, far more quickly than any of the Unix shops would have done,
they were more cautious.

The linux kids were like the young guys you got straight out of school
and told them to do the impossible.  Once in a while, they did.

> That said, Linus got along with enough folks at it worked.   

Sort of.  i think a far bigger deal was that he commanded respect,
there were lots of stories floating around like when people sent him
patches he knew the code well enough that an context diff was enough
context that he'd see a bug in the patch, edit the patch, and apply it.
I've seen him do that, he's a programmer's programmer.  Unlike a lot
of leaders who lead but when they have to get their hands dirty they 
are sort of wussy.


More information about the TUHS mailing list