> Don't be snide, it wrecks the S/N ratio of this site. No doubt you've already made yourself heard in the other flame wars on the subject.
What is your point here exactly? That I should not post because you may not like reading it? If you are a moderator of the site, please feel free to remove my post.
I make no apologies for my snideness - I think it was well deserved. Essentially, just because one file system does something in an idiotic way, we should now drop a perfectly good system call. Shouldn't we instead FIX what's broken so that all system calls and all file systems can be used as designed?
Similarly, we have seen heaps of new system calls introduced into Linux in recent times (dup3 and friends + other, backup related stuff from Ulrich Drepper), which all have to do with files. Why? Because they were needed. No complaints there. I thought the deal was that they would never get used? (see, being snide again).
> And to be fair, there's a difference in designing around "the odd crash here and there" and a 30 Second Window of Doom for every file creation.
And to be fair, there is difference in designing around complete system lockups for a number of seconds and committing data when required.