Unfortunately, as Linux has matured, many of its developers refuse to adapt technologies for the sole reason that it "stinks" of Microsoft.
Cutler and his team were pretty forward thinking given that NT is over 30 years old. See also: the async i/o headaches and the inability to WaitForSingleObject()/WaitForMultipleObjects() (or an analogue) in Linux.
> many of its developers refuse to adapt technologies for the sole reason that it "stinks" of Microsoft.
I don't where did you get that idea but it is not true at all. Linux developers have a history of ignoring (and reinventing) technologies and interfaces developed in other Unix systems, too. You can listen any Bryan Cantrill rant for more details. The claim that they refuse to adapt technologies that "stink" Microsoft is a mischaracterization.
> Well, yes, and of course, yet at the same time it's FOSS, so ... if someone really needed it, they should have proposed a patch. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
It's a bit like doing I/O that doesn't throw your data away... just use O_DIRECT, bring your own I/O manager and page cache and scheduling and simply implement all the low-level compatibility stuff yourself if you need such a weird thing ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I mean MySQL did that with libaio (which needs O_DIRECT anyway), Oracle on Linux did that and some with ASM (their own filesystem basically), also Ceph with BlueStore (LevelDB as a FS).
Because general purpose filesystems and I/O susbsystems are just that, general purpose.
PostgreSQL regularly woes about the problems of the Linux I/O and fs APIs, but ... to my knowledge they did not do much else. (Other than working around the problems in userspace, and taking the performance hit.)
If you want I/O that doesn't throw you data away, use the perfectly fine buffered I/O on let's say XFS. Fast, safe, sane. If you need more juice, add NVMe, and/or MD-RAID / LVM. And eventually you need to scale out to multiple nodes anyway, and then the performance of the cluster consistency subsystem will be the weak point.
Things don't get accepted into mainline just because you did the work. This is a weird misconception people have about open source. You also see it when people ask "why did you build this instead of just contributing it to $largeProject?"
But you also can't say that it's somehow impossible to get anything other than what Linus et al. think is the very epitome of perfect.
Upstreaming stuff is an effort. Contributing to such a complex and fragile pile of code/crap/C must be done through the kernel devs.
But if you want to add a new FS, I/O scheduler, bytecode VM, or whatever, it's possible. Look at Ceph, btrfs, bcachefs, all the SSD/NAND oriented FS-es, look at eBPF, and the XDP [eXpress Data Path] IO Visor network thingie, or WireGuard [which is still not merged as far as I know, because it tried to bring its own crypto library instead of using the already existing stuff]. All the stuff getting upstreamed from Android piece by piece.
A lot of kernel devs are happy about this or that, but they are pragmatists.
And Linus doesn't veto big ideas just because, but does not want to pull sub-par implementations. (See KDBUS for example.)
