[Top] [All Lists]

Re: future of xfs, oss.sgi.com after sgi purchased?

To: xfs-oss <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: future of xfs, oss.sgi.com after sgi purchased?
From: "Linda A. Walsh" <xfs@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 2009 01:34:16 -0700
In-reply-to: <49E6B6F7.6030500@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <49E65044.8080802@xxxxxxxxx> <49E6B6F7.6030500@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Thunderbird (Windows/20090302)
Eric Sandeen wrote:
Linda A. Walsh wrote:
> If sgi is being bought by another company, is there any idea about the plans
> for the xfs file system or the source code on 'oss.sgi.com'?

While I doubt that oss.sgi.com would abruptly vanish, there are
nonetheless already git repos on kernel.org, which are sometimes even
ahead of what's on oss.sgi.com ... xfs.org has a lot of content as well.
 Mailing list archives exist at various other sites.
   Would hope not -- but have seen companies pull real bonehead maneuvers.

I can understand that for kernel work, but what about the xfs utils? (dump/restore et al.) They have had a pretty static feature set from what little I've noticed, but I may just not be getting updates. I don't know if it would be of any benefit, but apparently the sgi xfsdump used to be multi-threaded? (Just as a random example). Thanks for allaying some concerns.

Felix Blyakher wrote:
I'm _guessing_ that there is some interest in users and developers to keep xfs alive after the 'sgi' moniker is purchased, but that begs the question about the new company wanting to support the old 'sgi.com' websites including oss.sgi.com.

Is there a danger of oss.sgi.com suddenly being yanked offline with little to no warning,

I doubt it'll happen in any circumstances.
There have been precedents at sgi. Other systems from sgi pulled on a policy change:
Internal news, external employee web-pages (reality being yanked).  All based on
some policy or organizational change that gave very little advance warning.

I hope that wouldn't happen. Though, while it'll be loss for xfs
in this unlikely scenario, I think, there is enough critical mass
outside of sgi to continue support and move forward xfs.
I'd like to think so, but for whatever reason(s), it's seems to be one of the larger (in terms of lines of code) filesystems -- making more difficult to support -- not that those lines aren't there for good use/good features. Just that XFS was well developed when it was being ported too linux. Was no easy task. I'd love to see XFS ported to the
Windows environment -- and then give MS some competition for their NT file 
Since Fat32 has more significantly important limitations, Can't always use a FAT32 as a
common files system between OS's. And MS isn't exactly open about NTFS.

xfs maintainer, still at sgi
Congrats...on making this far...


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>