Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 12th Jun 2008 20:46 UTC, submitted by LinucksGirl
Journaling file systems used to be an oddity primarily for research purposes, but today it's the default in Linux. Discover the ideas behind journaling file systems, and learn how they provide better integrity in the face of a power failure or system crash. Learn about the various journaling file systems in use today, and peek into the next generation of journaling file systems.
Thread beginning with comment 318453
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Hmmm. Congratulations. You've just violated the terms of service for OSNews.
Look at who's at the bottom of the thread, and where this starts, mate ;-).
Choke on your double-standard.
What double standard? The two aren't comparable, which is the point I believe.
Moonlight IS part of that track record
Yes, it is.
Since when is contributing codec source code necessary to avoid being called "evil"?
You mentioned a track record of open source credentials. That means code. I don't know why you keep mentioning the word evil here. You're the one who made that accusation, and you're the one with the complex about everybody thinking that Microsoft is evil.
Provide a link describing somebody that Microsoft has sued for patent infringement. I'd really like to read about it.
Alas, that isn't a get-out for you. Read the OSP and tell me if it is a legally binding license.
So what. When was the last time that the Samba developers contributed to Open Office? Or vice-versa?
Why would they want to do that? The two projects are different. I'm saying that if Microsoft wanst to be taken seriously as an open source company committed to interoperability, there's a pretty damn easy way to prove it.
Why is it necessary for devs to contribute to your pet projects in order to avoid being called "evil"?
Why are you mentioning the word evil again? You sound like one of those saddos on banging on his MSDN blog trying to tell us that everyone hates Microsoft and everything is an IBM conspiracy.
Are all developers who don't contribute to Samba and Open Office "evil"? If not, why? You're twisting yourself into knots.
Errrr, no. If they want to be taken seriously about interoperability and open source contributions, there's a damn easy way to do it.
How about the source code for the .NET Framework?
Errrrrr, no. I think you'll find that any code there is Rotor. You won't find the code for the .Net framework.
Windows Services for Unix.
Windows Services for Unix and Linux, running on Linux and Unix? Errr, no.
Apparently, you're not looking at all.
It ain't there.
Show me ANYBODY that Microsoft has sued for patent infringement.
That's not a get out and doesn't paint over how pointless the OSP is I'm afraid.
Red herring. OSP code is licensed to you with fairly generous terms
The OSP is not a license, as I've pointed out.
but it doesn't let you re-license the same source code separately; nor do you really NEED to do that at all.
Errrrr, cross pollination of source code from one project to another is an absolute cornerstone of any open source project and the open source world. Without it, there is no point.
You're just throwing any crap you can think of against the wall, and hoping that some of it will stick.
You've addressed absolutely nothing sweetheart. It's all fire and motion.
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2006-01-06
Hmmm. Congratulations. You've just violated the terms of service for OSNews.
Choke on your double-standard.
Moonlight IS part of that track record, but apparently, NOTHING that MS could do would overcome your double-standard.
Since when is contributing codec source code necessary to avoid being called "evil"? There are lots of ways to contribute to open source without contributing source code. FSF lawyer Eben Moglen doesn't contribute source code, but his legal contributions make it possible for open source to thrive. Microsoft contributes codecs to Linux. It makes Linux a more vibrant platform for users. But your narrow view of the universe is too twisted to recognize "contribution" as anything other than source code. Well, you're wrong.
Provide a link describing somebody that Microsoft has sued for patent infringement. I'd really like to read about it.
So what. When was the last time that the Samba developers contributed to Open Office? Or vice-versa? Why is it necessary for devs to contribute to your pet projects in order to avoid being called "evil"? Are all developers who don't contribute to Samba and Open Office "evil"? If not, why? You're twisting yourself into knots.
How about the source code for the .NET Framework?
Windows Services for Unix.
Apparently, you're not looking at all.
Show me ANYBODY that Microsoft has sued for patent infringement.
Red herring. OSP code is licensed to you with fairly generous terms, but it doesn't let you re-license the same source code separately; nor do you really NEED to do that at all. You're just throwing any crap you can think of against the wall, and hoping that some of it will stick.