ReiserFS for ReactOS & Windows -- Full Source Code

Here you can discuss ReactOS related topics.

Moderator: Moderator Team

Locked

Should ReiserFS be the ReactOS de facto filesystem driver while keeping FAT and others as optional?

Yes
85
60%
No
57
40%
 
Total votes: 142

elektrik
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:20 am

Post by elektrik »

Bash can be provided for Windows without problems. 10% about of people are techs or able to use a commandline. In most cases more people linux personal are more skill at commandline level than windows users. Not always. Some linux techs are almost completely useless on the commandline. There notes are mainly how to I install my repair tool to get to graphical.
Nevermind-you either can't or won't understand that Windows users SHOULD NOT have to learn Unix commands if they *have to* resort to using the commandline (which they will-I dispute your %10 of windows users figure).
100% windows compad. you really do mean 100% or do you only mean the Microsoft part. Standard feature of Windows is POSIX addon part of this addon has bash support. I am not asking for anything more than what is require to get 100% windows compad. Bash support is require to get development system of POSIX to work. And since it will be required anyhow provide it to techs.
100% Windows compatibility means just that-from the "look and feel" to the commands used-plain and simple. Only the Microsoft part? Of course! the command line commands in Windows is FROM MICROSOFT! <bangs head on the wall>

(**quick qualification-I don't mean they created the commands (yes, I know where some DOS box commands originated), I mean the functionality of the commands that are there currently in Win NT/2K/XP which users have access to)

Yes but why are they on the command line. Should they not be provided in the form that most users use. The GUI. And should not they be provided with the most tech compad ie Windows "DOS" and bash. Please note anything that is a .exe like net ipconfig and. Is runable inside the bash enviroment. Basicly drop alot of the addons and compare the scripting and DOS is stuffed. Reason why wsh was created but just like microsoft to stuff that up with lack of secuirty.
Again, you're missing the point. Let's use your argument: I replace the hard to use DOS command line with a "less" hard to use GUI. The "easier to use" GUI may be just that, but there is *still* a learning curve-especially if Windows users have never used it before; Another (minor) point: this as-yet-unnamed-GUI-tool is to be included in ReactOS but *not* windows (which it won't be), breaking the goal of 100% Windows compatibility (assuming this is used in lieu of the command line). A simple compromise could be reached-provide the Command line commands and then create an OSS application to handle the same powerful commands of a command line in a GUI (if you wish)-it's been done many times...
This is totally not required. I know that user around 90% users don't know command line. And in more cases than not, linux/Mac personal have to repair windows so why not make it simpler if you require to program anyhow for other sections of compad.
Um...do you really think Macintosh personal have to repair windows? If so, I'd be afraid to know where you work-all the Macintosh people I know (no, this is not flame bait to start a Mac/Windows debate, so don't try it ;-)) are barely users-certainly not administrators of the Windows O.S.
100% compadable means it will run all Windows applications and software. Posix based software is part of this. Note 100% compadable does not have to be done the same way.
From the "about ReactOS" link on THIS site:

"Before ReactOS Around about 1996 some people formed a group called FreeWin95, with the goal to implement an operating system that would be a clone of Windows 95....It was decided that the target should be Windows NT and that there would be an emphasis on results -- on written code rather than endless talk...."

Keyword there is "CLONE". In case you try to argue, clone means an EXACT duplicate-nuff said.
There is no point cloning a OS if you are not going to provide some extra features or fixed up features..
I think I understand your point, however I would say it a different way-if at the end of "cloning" all the major windows functions, look and feel, etc. they decide to add on say, Linux binary compatibilty or an OS/2 subsystem (etc.), they can do so to enhance the functionality, but the goal is to clone the Windows O.S.

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Post by oiaohm »

The Posix standard part is from Microsoft to but it sticks to the standard not the standard Mircosoft wrote.

Hmm Clone. DrDos FreeDos 4Dos. All clones of Microsoft Dos all have more features. Clone does not mean a exact copy in the computer world it never has.

Yes Macintosh personal repair Windows Machines. As with all techs come in many forms. Ie Repairing Macintoshs normally don't bring in enough business they don't break enough so to make up the slack they repair Windows machines as well. Most Macintosh tech work are upgrades.

I will give you that the general users of Macintosh have verry little knollage since the os just works.

Most lower knollage level users I deal with partitions with Partition Magic or the Windows XP Installer. Basicly tools built to look like and work like these will not provide major problems users might even know how to use it now.


Stuff like Xsetup from Xtec provide better access to lots of the registry and prevent alot of mistakes and trouble. GUI can redue the chances of mistakes.

The learning curve is not high. Number one if they have ever installed XP they will know how to do it. The tool might have to be custom to reactos even if its look and feel is verry simpler to another program or the program might even be cross all windows machines this will be dependant on if the features of reactos are exactly the same as Windows. Different filesystem support might mean its not suitable for Windows even if it would work.

First of the user does not have to learn copy move type del chdir mkdir. Yep they have been using the Windows GUI so they know how to all of this. Format a newly created part yes they know how to do this right click and choose format.

Windows XP can be completely Installed without ever touching the command line.

Basicly its is standard for Windows users of latter versions never to touch the command line except in case of major stuff ups. Now they call a tech because they don't have a clue how to get around the command line. ie cd or chdir sound simple to me but they don't have a clue how to do it. Give them a PE disk with explorer and they get around their system no problems. In most case they end up reinstalling or reformating there machine and crying about there lost data because the did not have the money to pay a tech to fix it.

Provide a System Recovery Wizard on a PE disk and have it step them threw the repair.
Step one do you wish to check your partitions for errors.
Step two do you wish to check you installalations for damaged files.
Step three do you wish to change system configs.
Step four do you wish to change the administator password.(main reason to drop to command line but guess what it asks for this the windows disk so a break out a linux disk and override)

They are use to wizards most users use them every day of the week.

Keep them in graphical and they will not have problems. This is only a guide more might be required. How many users do you really know who configure or change there system majorly from the command line.

elektrik
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:20 am

Post by elektrik »

Hmm Clone. DrDos FreeDos 4Dos. All clones of Microsoft Dos all have more features. Clone does not mean a exact copy in the computer world it never has.
I disagree strongly. The very definition of clone means to copy-just because other's have aimed and failed doesn't mean the initial idea to clone is negated. Same here. Now granted, ReactOS *may* decide that for whatever reason, certain things may not be able to be copied - which at that point I hope they'll change their stated goals ;-)
Yes Macintosh personal repair Windows Machines. As with all techs come in many forms. Ie Repairing Macintoshs normally don't bring in enough business they don't break enough so to make up the slack they repair Windows machines as well. Most Macintosh tech work are upgrades.

I will give you that the general users of Macintosh have verry little knollage since the os just works.
which was my point...
Most lower knollage level users I deal with partitions with Partition Magic or the Windows XP Installer. Basicly tools built to look like and work like these will not provide major problems users might even know how to use it now.


Stuff like Xsetup from Xtec provide better access to lots of the registry and prevent alot of mistakes and trouble. GUI can redue the chances of mistakes.
And most "lower knowledge" users I deal with don't have the money to buy a cornucopia of third party utilties, learn to use them, etc. (which, I would also submit that your users aren't "lower" level if they're using all those utilities, but that has more to do with our personal experiences than fact)
The learning curve is not high. Number one if they have ever installed XP they will know how to do it...
Blanket statements like this are why your arguments have no credibility in my opinion. To say that the learning curve is not high is to dismiss human nature. What is easy for one person may seem like brain surgery for another person...Some people may understand typing commands in a character based box MUCH easier than having to navigate a GUI (granted, I'll admit that's less likely)-my point is that you can't quantitatively say that the learning curve is not high for every computer user...
First of the user does not have to learn copy move type del chdir mkdir. Yep they have been using the Windows GUI so they know how to all of this. Format a newly created part yes they know how to do this right click and choose format.
See my comments above
Windows XP can be completely Installed without ever touching the command line.
And you believe that happens every single time, in every single installation of Windows? On every single computer configuration? Windows installation *never* encounters problems where you have to use the Command line to prep the system? Please don't tell me you believe that

Basicly its is standard for Windows users of latter versions never to touch the command line except in case of major stuff ups.
See my comments above - the "major stuff" you mention happens quite frequently with windows installs - ESPECIALLY upgrades to the O.S. (one version to another) extremely frequently (to the point that their "old" O.S. won't even boot to the GUI). If you spent any time doing Desktop or Technical Support, you'd know that.
Now they call a tech because they don't have a clue how to get around the command line. ie cd or chdir sound simple to me but they don't have a clue how to do it. Give them a PE disk with explorer and they get around their system no problems. In most case they end up reinstalling or reformating there machine and crying about there lost data because the did not have the money to pay a tech to fix it.
Again, you're making major assumptions. Most people can't afford to call a tech, unless the support is free with the computer/O.S. (and we all know the support warranties are dismal at best). You seem to think that the PE disk is all powerful and can solve all problems, based on this statement. And yes, they will end up crying about lost data because they didn't have enough money for a tech to fix it, but to say that having a GUI based application will save their data, make everything easier, etc. is an extremely naive view.
Provide a System Recovery Wizard on a PE disk and have it step them threw the repair.
Step one do you wish to check your partitions for errors.
Step two do you wish to check you installalations for damaged files.
Step three do you wish to change system configs.
Step four do you wish to change the administator password.(main reason to drop to command line but guess what it asks for this the windows disk so a break out a linux disk and override)
You're talking about a simple application that can be bundled after the O.S. is "cloned"-Even MS could do that right now...
Keep them in graphical and they will not have problems. This is only a guide more might be required. How many users do you really know who configure or change there system majorly from the command line.
You don't think that someone can delete their system folder using Windows Explorer? For that matter, we're not talking about configuring the system from the command line-my original point was CLONING the O.S.'s look and feel down to the command line - especially since you put up the poll regarding the REISERFS.

Bond007s
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:09 am

I put up the poll of the ReiserFS

Post by Bond007s »

I put up the poll of the ReiserFS. It has not been properly understood by many, FAT would of corse be an option by like Windows NT 4.0 and on have defaulted to the NTFS, we need something to. NTFS is still widely not understood, so ReiserFS using extensions can be used as a base of an NTFS compatible FS. ReiserFS is the only FS that suports nearly all of the NTFS options. Ext2/ext3 just don't, plus ReiserFS is more efficient in auto-defragmentation than any other FS to date (and yes, EXT2/ext3 can be fragmented, only they prevent most, ReiserFS takes the preventative nature a bit farther.)

This topic has gotten way off course. There have been to many debates of x or y while avoiding the ReiserFS question. If I had more time and others would help I would make a kernel land FS driver for ReiserFS so that it may be an IFS.

Please can we stop bickering about things that don't even pertain. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOWS PAGE WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR FILESYSTEM, THEN LOOK AT IT. I do not want that taken away, I only thought that ReiserFS could be the default like NTFS is the default (recommended or whatever you want it called. Please quite using this post for a constant debate of different topics...

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Sorry bond007s

Post by oiaohm »

Both electik and me have completely different views.

Number 1 command line is not important to be compad with reiserfs. from my point of view. Recovery would be done mostly graphical mount and so on.

Basicly we took a side line topic that really need to be resolved.

Electrik meat me at the best way recover reactos debate. I am really sorry Bond007s I should have started this fight else where. Will submit a request for a link off feature. Ie fights like this get linked to the main page and all follow ups don't mess up yours.

elektrik
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:20 am

Post by elektrik »

Both electik and me have completely different views.
That's ok..If we were all the same, the world would be a boring place :)
Number 1 command line is not important to be compad with reiserfs. from my point of view. Recovery would be done mostly graphical mount and so on.
Understood, even though I don't share your opinion
Basicly we took a side line topic that really need to be resolved.
Now, this I agree with...
Electrik meat me at the best way recover reactos debate. I am really sorry Bond007s I should have started this fight else where. Will submit a request for a link off feature. Ie fights like this get linked to the main page and all follow ups don't mess up yours.
We were fighting? I thought we were just debating the merits of having the ReiserFS used in ReactOS? I certainly don't want to "fight" anyone....

elektrik
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:20 am

Post by elektrik »


This topic has gotten way off course. There have been to many debates of x or y while avoiding the ReiserFS question. If I had more time and others would help I would make a kernel land FS driver for ReiserFS so that it may be an IFS.

Please can we stop bickering about things that don't even pertain. IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE INSTALLATION OF WINDOWS PAGE WHERE YOU CAN CHOOSE YOUR FILESYSTEM, THEN LOOK AT IT. I do not want that taken away, I only thought that ReiserFS could be the default like NTFS is the default (recommended or whatever you want it called. Please quite using this post for a constant debate of different topics...
I'm sorry-you posted the poll on whether ReactOS should use ReiserFS as the default FS and the point I have been trying to make throughout this (and yes, it most certainly *is* related to your original post) is that if there is to be an "emergency" boot disk, it must have the "look and feel" of the emergency boot disk of Windows 2k/XP because the emergency boot disk will have to be able to have the same commands, etc. and be able to access the information. Our debate was on that particular aspect (using Linux boot disk to access data on a ReiserFS).

Have I looked at the windows "page" where you can choose your default file system? Of course I have. I'm not referring to that-I *am* referring to the file system access and since the posts we were debating had to do with accessing the file system, the boot disk is most certainly important.

Another thing: Please don't accuse me of "bickering". I am merely responding with my thoughts on your post-sorry if you don't want a healthy debate, but you should be prepared when put up a poll.

Bond007s
Posts: 58
Joined: Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:09 am

Post by Bond007s »

elektrik,I'm sorry about the whole attack of people that have not seen the installation where you can choose your filesystem. I meant that returning to the original topic as some have said that they wanted FAT so that it would be compatible with Winfows and so you could read info from Windows. I think that is a lousy reason to vote for ReiserFS not being the default filesystem as nobody has said that it should be the only one, just the default. People can still choose their filesystem. Sorry again elektrik, that was not meant at you. It was meant for the people that used their debate to stay with FAT because it would be compatible with Windows. ReiserFS could well make ReactOS well more compatible with Windows. The only drawback is that the driver would have to be installed in Windows also for the information to be accessable in Windows also. However lets face it, how many people really use the dual boot proccess? Most of these people either use Linux or well know how to install a driver in Windows...

Gasmann
Posts: 283
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 6:53 pm
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by Gasmann »

Bond007s wrote:I think that is a lousy reason to vote for ReiserFS not being the default filesystem as nobody has said that it should be the only one, just the default. People can still choose their filesystem.
That's not fully true, ok, you didn't, but oiaohm did.
Bond007s wrote:ReiserFS could well make ReactOS well more compatible with Windows. The only drawback is that the driver would have to be installed in Windows also for the information to be accessable in Windows also. However lets face it, how many people really use the dual boot proccess? Most of these people either use Linux or well know how to install a driver in Windows...
I fully agree with you.

Elledan
Posts: 363
Joined: Sat Jan 01, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Netherlands
Contact:

Post by Elledan »

Support for many filesystems should be considered a feature rather than a flaw. The default option when a (novice) user is asked to select the filesystem type during installation or when formatting a partition should be a sensible one.

My personal favourite is XFS rather than Reiser :p

elektrik
Posts: 46
Joined: Thu Dec 09, 2004 12:20 am

Post by elektrik »

elektrik,I'm sorry about the whole attack of people that have not seen the installation where you can choose your filesystem.
Absolutely no problems :)
I meant that returning to the original topic as some have said that they wanted FAT so that it would be compatible with Winfows and so you could read info from Windows. I think that is a lousy reason to vote for ReiserFS not being the default filesystem as nobody has said that it should be the only one, just the default. People can still choose their filesystem. Sorry again elektrik, that was not meant at you.
Again, no problem. In fact, if you look at my original post, I didn't say I was against any particular FS, just that the user "look and feel" must remain intact. We then got into discussions as to how different the linux commands were from the MS commands and how the "look and feel" would be lost, that's all.
It was meant for the people that used their debate to stay with FAT because it would be compatible with Windows. ReiserFS could well make ReactOS well more compatible with Windows. The only drawback is that the driver would have to be installed in Windows also for the information to be accessable in Windows also. However lets face it, how many people really use the dual boot proccess? Most of these people either use Linux or well know how to install a driver in Windows...
Like I said above-I don't care if we use *any* particular EXT2 (no, I'm not endorsing it ;-))-however, I'm more concerned with the "commands" used to access the file system-I must *believe* I'm using a windows DOS box, much the way that in ReactOS I must *believe* that I'm using a clone of windows-since the GUI is most likely going to mimic MS's own GUI (Again, an assumption here) then the DOS box would logically have to mimic it. That was my only point-absolutely no hard feelings intended to anyone here....

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Context

Post by oiaohm »

That's not fully true, ok, you didn't, but oiaohm did.
Hmm I said anything bar fat due to not being able to create security options on it. And ntfs will not be ready soon. Default resierfs would be find so would be xfs and ext3. Becareful will general comment.

I would prefer that fat install be forbind in time due to lack of security. Basicly for what I want to do I need a filesystem that security can be setup on.

counting_pine
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 10:44 pm
Location: Fallowfield

Re: Context

Post by counting_pine »

oiaohm wrote:I would prefer that fat install be forbind in time due to lack of security. Basicly for what I want to do I need a filesystem that security can be setup on.
So, what you're saying is that, because you need a secure filesystem, that should be the only type available?

MadRat
Posts: 243
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 8:29 am
Contact:

Post by MadRat »

I agree that a secure ROS file system is a must. Perhaps one of you gents that is not already programming ROS could work with the developers to create a ROSFS, then the whole idea would be a moot issue.
*************************************
Go Huskers!

oiaohm
Posts: 1322
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 8:40 am

Secuirty is my main focus.

Post by oiaohm »

As long as the file system can provide the require secuirty I don't have a problem with it. Fat cannot.

If reactos has 10 or more filesystem that it could install on that all provided the require secuirty. I would not have a problem with it. This might be getting to many options for some people.

Rosfs sounds like a good idea at first. Development time would be the killer. All the linux list of filesystems have tools that can be ported to look after them and create them. These are all tested so only minor work is required in this regard.

Long term yes consider RosFs short term consider one of the existing.

Windows Driver development I lack good documentation to work on it. This is kinda a requirement. Project anyone create a reactos manual for creating reactos drivers.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 4 guests