Oros' SFS Page

[Creature]

A wiki user (and probably the forums) has done an effort to 'port' the SFS specification to our wiki (see link below). Seeing as the current SFS wiki page has little information, it may be interesting to replace it with his page (and update and correct if necessary).

The pages can be found here:

• http://wiki.osdev.org/SFS
• http://wiki.osdev.org/User:Oros/SFS

What do you think? I'm asking this since there may be controversy over which article to use, seeing as some may not like it if we use a direct copy of the specification (even though it may be updated and adjusted to add more information).

[Combuster]

The official spec may change, who's then to update the wiki page? There's no point in having an 1:1 copy. IMO The wiki should provide additional information and implementation suggestions, or at least explain things differently, because else there's no added value beyond a hard-to-maintain mirror. The current page does that; it summarizes the specification and lists a few pitfalls and provides thus some information that would be irrelevant as part of the official document.

I vote for maintaining the status quo.

[Solar]

<sheep mode>

Redundancy is baaaaaaaad...

</sheep mode>

+1 to Combuster.

[Candy]

Redundancy can be good, if all kept up to date.

But:
1. Wikis aren't a good place for specs. They are changeable by anyone, which specs always aren't.
2. Combuster seems to be doing an awesome job in keeping it online. It's probably best if he has the only spec here.

[Combuster]

The only reason I'm hosting it is because of the unreliability of hopto.org, and the fact that its registered as a spam domain. Speaking of which, shouldn't you fix your http://www.atlantisos.org/sfs.html ?

[Solar]

Redundancy can be good, if all kept up to date.

*MEEEP*.

Condition-cannot-be-satisfied-error.

What happens to above sentence when the "if" condition goes "false"?

Exactly.

Redundancy is baaaaaaad...

Backups are gooooood...

</sheep mode>