ReiserFS Has Been Deleted From The Linux Kernel

[Weasel]

Fire up a VM with an older kernel, move data to newer FS, problem solved with little drama provided you don't have bitrot on your old storage device in which case for important data may I suggest stone tablets in future as they have proved stable for millennia since ancient times, if stored correctly.

Next.

Ok. I never said it's a problem for me.

I just said it breaks userspace and some people might not know how to use VMs. That's not even an excuse to break it, I mean you could say the same thing about any userspace break → use a VM with old kernel.

[mobadboy]

Ok. I never said it's a problem for me.

I just said it breaks userspace and some people might not know how to use VMs. That's not even an excuse to break it, I mean you could say the same thing about any userspace break → use a VM with old kernel.

its like you take being obtuse as a challenge. saying this in case someone reads your doodoobrain logic

filesystems are not what linux considers or advertises as "userspace" which will break. linux, at no point, has guaranteed that any filesystem will remain in the kernel. if there is nobody interested enough to maintain it then it goes away. thats how its been since you were born. now, the open/openat syscalls are what is considered userspace because applications take a dependency on it via fopen.

instead, you're packing as many fallacies per sentence as possible and not using critical thinking skills. but it's not like you'd ever accept that since you always have to have the last word. you're a perpetual keyboard warrior who thinks they're smarter than everyone else because you're aggressive as fuck and people don't feel like arguing with you because there's no point, and so you think of that as "winning"

btw, british food is terrible, awful and bad. the only good food in the uk is foreign food.

[Weasel]

its like you take being obtuse as a challenge. saying this in case someone reads your doodoobrain logic

filesystems are not what linux considers or advertises as "userspace" which will break. linux, at no point, has guaranteed that any filesystem will remain in the kernel. if there is nobody interested enough to maintain it then it goes away. thats how its been since you were born. now, the open/openat syscalls are what is considered userspace because applications take a dependency on it via fopen.

instead, you're packing as many fallacies per sentence as possible and not using critical thinking skills. but it's not like you'd ever accept that since you always have to have the last word. you're a perpetual keyboard warrior who thinks they're smarter than everyone else because you're aggressive as fuck and people don't feel like arguing with you because there's no point, and so you think of that as "winning"

btw, british food is terrible, awful and bad. the only good food in the uk is foreign food.

That's completely nonsense since most of sysfs is also stable as many apps rely on it, and it's still an interface. Thinking it covers only kernel syscalls is just naive or delusional, dunno which.

For filesystems, "mount" is a userspace tool. Enough said.

I also don't particularly care about this breaking userspace by itself, but that it loses archival potential, which can be a big issue. And Linux did break ABI sometimes in the past so it's not unprecedented.

[mobadboy]

That's completely nonsense since most of sysfs is also stable as many apps rely on it, and it's still an interface. Thinking it covers only kernel syscalls is just naive or delusional, dunno which.

For filesystems, "mount" is a userspace tool. Enough said.

I also don't particularly care about this breaking userspace by itself, but that it loses archival potential, which can be a big issue. And Linux did break ABI sometimes in the past so it's not unprecedented.

OK then let me explain it since you seem to have missed the post

run an old version of linux. if it wont run on your computer, run an old one. there is an almost unlimited supply of old computers which will all grant access to reiserfs.

there are tons of old formats that are not readable on modern machines

reiserfs does not come for free. it costs time (and thus money) to maintain.

and before you say "bUt oLd lInUx nOt RuN oN nEw hArDwArE"

run an old machine like everything else does. or, use the equivalent to qemu.

there is zero reason to keep it in the kernel today without someone stepping up to spend the time and money to maintain it. nobody did so its gone from mainline. but it will never be gone from the kernel history. and if someone really really really cares then they can write a fuse driver.

i cant believe i actually had to explain that. something something circus insert flame war here

[Weasel]

OK then let me explain it since you seem to have missed the post

run an old version of linux. if it wont run on your computer, run an old one. there is an almost unlimited supply of old computers which will all grant access to reiserfs.

there are tons of old formats that are not readable on modern machines

reiserfs does not come for free. it costs time (and thus money) to maintain.

and before you say "bUt oLd lInUx nOt RuN oN nEw hArDwArE"

run an old machine like everything else does. or, use the equivalent to qemu.

there is zero reason to keep it in the kernel today without someone stepping up to spend the time and money to maintain it. nobody did so its gone from mainline. but it will never be gone from the kernel history. and if someone really really really cares then they can write a fuse driver.

i cant believe i actually had to explain that. something something circus insert flame war here

Why don't you use the same argument to break syscall userspace ABIs then? Most of them are only needed to run ancient libc versions on your latest kernel, because libc already abstracts most of it for apps that use libc (instead of syscalls directly).

[mobadboy]

Why don't you use the same argument to break syscall userspace ABIs then? Most of them are only needed to run ancient libc versions on your latest kernel, because libc already abstracts most of it for apps that use libc (instead of syscalls directly).

because im not making obscure philosophical arguments

im making a practical one

if nobody uses a particular syscall and you're really really sure of it, then go ahead and remove it. but that's exceedingly rare. otherwise you'll randomly break apps for thousands of users when they upgrade their kernel.

[Weasel]

because im not making obscure philosophical arguments

im making a practical one

if nobody uses a particular syscall and you're really really sure of it, then go ahead and remove it. but that's exceedingly rare. otherwise you'll randomly break apps for thousands of users when they upgrade their kernel.

https://xkcd.com/1172

There's always that guy.