| To: | Keith Matthews <keith_m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
|---|---|
| Subject: | Re: XFS vs. JFS |
| From: | Vincent Bernat <bernat@xxxxxxx> |
| Date: | Mon, 2 Jul 2001 20:48:14 +0200 |
| Cc: | Linux XFS Mailing List <linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx> |
| In-reply-to: | <20010701183306.E9B64125E6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; from keith_m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on Sun, Jul 01, 2001 at 07:33:06PM +0100 |
| References: | <4.3.2.7.2.20010701135304.03a05bb0@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <200107011212.f61CCgM15038@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20010701183306.E9B64125E6@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> |
| Sender: | owner-linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx |
| User-agent: | Mutt/1.2.5i |
Le Sun Jul 01, 2001 at 19:33 +0100, Keith Matthews <keith_m@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> disait : > The IBM guy was not aware of the OS/2 origin of Linux JFS, > but I had heard of it from other sources (I had also heard > that someone has back-ported the Linux version to OS/2 and > come up with a better product than the original OS/2 one !!). The major interest of the backport to OS/2 is that JFS is not freely available for OS/2. It is in Aurora (Warp Server 5) and incoming eComStation but not for Warp 4. It is one of the curious strategy that IBM uses to signify that OS/2 is almost dead. |
| <Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
|---|---|---|
| ||
| Previous by Date: | TAKE - more xfs memory hardening, Steve Lord |
|---|---|
| Next by Date: | Re: XFS & ADSM, Juergen Hasch |
| Previous by Thread: | Re: XFS vs. JFS, Peter . Kelemen |
| Next by Thread: | Re: XFS vs. JFS, Ric Tibbetts |
| Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |