From owner-freebsd-current Mon Jul 21 23:27:20 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id XAA09650 for current-outgoing; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:27:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sendero-ppp.i-connect.net (sendero-ppp.i-Connect.Net [206.190.143.100]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id XAA09645 for ; Mon, 21 Jul 1997 23:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Received: (qmail 20758 invoked by uid 1000); 22 Jul 1997 06:27:30 -0000 Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.1 [p0] on FreeBSD Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <199707220143.LAA25905@genesis.atrad.adelaide.edu.au> Date: Mon, 21 Jul 1997 22:53:36 -0700 (PDT) Organization: Atlas Telecom From: Simon Shapiro To: Michael Smith Subject: Re: Boot file system idea! Slick Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, terry@lambert.org, pechter@lakewood.com Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk Hi Michael Smith; On 22-Jul-97 you wrote: > Bill Pechter stands accused of saying: > > > > Still, it may be worth thinking about. > > > > > > If you think about it, think about making it a small DOS partition > and > > > not a BFS partition. > > > > Damn, that's slick. Great IDEA! If the kernel gets blown or corrupted > > a simple copy from a dos floppy and it's fixed... > > ... this is just one small step from "boot from a kernel image on a > DOS partition". > > > Slick. Anyone else like this or is it just me? > > Yeah, I've always liked it. The biggest argument you will hear > against it is "backwards compatability", along with "mandatory > MSDOSFS". If/when Robert Nordier ever gets his VFATFS code finished, > there might be a good chance of making this happen. What I like about it is that it: a. Increases the size and complexity of a minimal kernel to include another file system not necessarily needed otherwise. b. Uses a standard file system. Which standard? c. Makes FreeBSD (installation) dependant on MicroSoft. d. Allows everyone with a dos floppy (or without) to modify/destroy the O/S. On the down side of things, one has to ask: 1. What does it exactly buy? * A smaller boot image? No * A simpler boot? No. The SysV bfs has SOME merit. Except that it is very slow for some reason. The (only) advantage is in a simplified & unified boot. The files are contigious, in a very simple directory. All this is nullified when one considers that it is an option. So the 2nd, 3rd stage boot still need to know multiple file system formats. Note: The above (my portion) is only worth $0.02 or less :-) Simon