Slashdot Mirror
Interview With Reiser4 Author Hans Reiser
An anonymous reader writes "KernelTrap has an interesting interview with Hans Reiser, the author of two revolutionary Linux filesystems, Reiser3 and Reiser4. Reiser3 was the first journaling Linux filesystem. Reiser4 is a complete rewrite that is claimed to offer amazing performance and a new plugin architecture offering semantic enhancements to rival Microsoft's WinFS and Apple's Spotlight. Comparing Reiser4 to WinFS, Reiser says in the interview, "Reiser4 is a much more mature design, representing a 10 year effort"."
My understanding is that the kernel developers have pointed out flaws in the benchmarks and he has accepted the criticisms but points out that they are just benchmarks and all benchmarks have flaws. This would not be a problem if he didn't keep referring to the benchmarks when trying to ram a change into the kernel. You can't have it both ways.
It's also my understanding that the key reason kernel developers don't want to accept his patches is that they don't like big megapatches that affect many systems or replicate functionality that is already in the kernel -- it's bad for maintenance. It's also my understanding that he doesn't want to break up the patches himself and he has refused help from others who are eager to do it for him. For him, it's an all or nothing deal -- take it or leave it. The kernel developers say "fine, we'll leave it", but he doesn't accept their decision and continues to complain. Again, you can't have it both ways.
Reiser may be a genius, but even geniuses have to (*gasp*) live in the real world and negotiate with real people. Even if Reiser is smarter than all the kernel developers (doubtful), it pays to treat your so-called "inferiors" with respect. Even janitors and garbage collectors can have wisdom that we don't have and things they can teach us.
Yeah, that's not a good link. Try this kerneltrap one. Things have been brewing. I haven't kept up with the most recent stuff, though.
;) If I butchered anybody's perspective, please correct me. I don't do kernel dev or psychology.
It's really a design/people issue. There are the lingering issues of stability and similar, but these are not (as I understand) the original problem.
Reiser4 incorporates some sophisticated metadata concepts ("semantics") that are in effect a software layer over the fs - which is why Hans can compare it to WinFS. Some of these features step into the functionality domain of the VFS and the kernel. Not a bad thing, per se.
Now, we all know the stereotypical kernel dev - technically conservative, concerned about maintenaince, not really keen on making big compromises, and annoyed by ego (again, a stereotype). Keep that in mind.
Hans of course wants Reiser4 into the kernel. What's the holdup (from a technical design standpoint)? Well, individuals like Andrew Morton want functionality in the kernel that can be reused in a file-system nuetral fashion. Reiser4 has a plugin system, but it's a Reiser4 plugin system. Reiser4 and Hans want to extend Linux as an API, which right now will just be for Reiser4.
There are also some lingering details of how this will change the course of filesystem integration in the kernel, in regards to traditional POSIX and Unix-like behavior. I don't recall any enduser problems, but there are few complaints.
Why might this be annoying? Well, Hans wants his fs into the kernel now and he makes the case of its superiority, the markets demand, and the need to compete with companies like Microsoft. I wouldn't be the one to tell kernel devs that they need to compete with MS, but Hans is - to say the least - confident. And he did name the filesystem after himself, so I'm not how this couldn't be personal on some level.
The middle ground is to say to Hans: we'll take Reiser4, but we want these Reiser-only features to be ultimately modified for all capable filesystems. Hans insists - and I'm sort of generalizing here - that the details can be sorted out, but right now we should go with Reiser4 and not worry about making it anything but a great fs.
So, Hans took a "assertive" position on why Reiser4 should not only be included in the Linux kernel but also change the kernel. Linus, Morton, and a few others took a stand and said - in so many words - "Hans, we aren't putting your ego into our kernel. Not even experimental."
It would be interesting to see if end users put enough momentum behind Reiser4 to put in into mainline or start it in 2.7.
Is that worth a few flames?
Are you sure you understand what ReiserFS is suppose to do? What about WinFS? I don't think compairing WinFS to ReisierFS is quite like compairing Qt to Explorer. The functionality of WinFS is (as I understand things) a proper subset of the functionality of ReiserFS.
Again, there purposes are not really different. Sure, ReiserFS is a full blown filesystem, and WinFS is not a filesystem, however the functionality of WinFS is included in ReiserFS. The fact that they operate at different levels is the reason for Reiser's remarks concerning ReiserFS and WinFS. That's his point. WinFS works on a user level to provide functionality that ReiserFS provides at the filesystem level, and Reiser feels that this is a more mature design.
...interesting if true.
Another thing I thought sounded cool was the ability to cat /home/foo/music/some.mp3/raw > /dev/dsp and the mp3 would just play by using a plugin that ran it through an mp3 library. This would allow application developers to just access file/raw rather than worrying about file types and conversions.
If I'm writing an image viewing program I no longer have to worry about hooks to libjpg, libungif, libpng, libevery image file type available. Let the OS care about file types and let applications deal with raw data and focus on interface rather than file types.
Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
There's nothing a janitor or garbage collector can teach me or you, or most others on Slashdot.
How about humility?
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.