From owner-freebsd-current  Tue Jul 22 00:16:46 1997
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current>
Received: (from root@localhost)
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) id AAA12108
          for current-outgoing; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:16:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from godzilla.zeta.org.au (godzilla.zeta.org.au [203.2.228.19])
          by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id AAA12097
          for <freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 00:16:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (from bde@localhost) by godzilla.zeta.org.au (8.8.5/8.6.9) id RAA15780; Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:08:09 +1000
Date: Tue, 22 Jul 1997 17:08:09 +1000
From: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>
Message-Id: <199707220708.RAA15780@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
To: imp@rover.village.org, msmith@atrad.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Boot file system idea! Slick
Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG, pechter@lakewood.com, terry@lambert.org
Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG
X-Loop: FreeBSD.org
Precedence: bulk

>> So I think it is a cool idea, so long as it isn't mandatory :-)
>
>The problem is that if it's not mandatory, there's no point in doing
>it.  If we support reading from ufs filesystems anyway, there's
>nothing really gained from having FAT support.  This is why I can't
>understand Bruce suggesting Yet Another Filesystem just for the
>bootstrap.

Can you understand Terry suggesting it? %-)  I even unsuggested rawboot
and nextboot.  It's easier to hack on raw sectors than on file systems,
but the results aren't so good, and the the simplications are actually
complexifications if the file system version is still supported.

Bruce