Microsoft prohibits GPLed work via licensing of CIFS standards

Tomasz Wegrzanowski taw at
Mon Apr 8 14:50:00 UTC 2002

On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 04:45:56PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2002 at 11:55:44AM +0200, M E Leypold @ labnet wrote:
> > Yes -- I agree. We need a better (and more uniform) framework for
> > sharing, abstracting and visualizing (possibly remote) resources. OK,
> > I'm now talking about Linux mostly, but I'd like to have is like
> > the Plan-9 Filesystem: Everything in a uniform processlocal
> > namespace. Internet Sockets are just files (no need for netcat),
> > loopback devices from user space (encrypted block-devices: no problem
> > then) and so on. It' would be just a matter of the server used to
> > export a resource encrypted to one side (Internet) and unencrypted to
> > the other (my home LAN). 
> Every plan9 feature I've heard of can be implemented in the Hurd
> without too much difficulties. The real difference is that the Hurd is
> still POSIX compatible while plan9 isn't AFAIK.
> Jeroen Dekkers

If everything can be implemented so easily in Hurd then why nobody
implements these things ?

BTW. have you looked at Reiserfs's plans ? It seems that it will
include something like translators soon. They plan to use it mostly
for compression-on-fly and encryption-on-fly but it is going to be
more general than that.

More information about the Discussion mailing list