From owner-freebsd-fs Sat Aug 21 2:44: 5 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from peach.ocn.ne.jp (peach.ocn.ne.jp [210.145.254.87]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1BA3E14EBE; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 02:43:56 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dcs@newsguy.com) Received: from newsguy.com by peach.ocn.ne.jp (8.9.1a/OCN) id SAA05512; Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:39:36 +0900 (JST) Message-ID: <37BE6CE8.D59FF19C@newsguy.com> Date: Sat, 21 Aug 1999 18:10:00 +0900 From: "Daniel C. Sobral" X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.6 [en] (Win98; I) X-Accept-Language: en,pt-BR,ja MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Terry Lambert , phk@critter.freebsd.dk, michaelh@cet.co.jp, wrstuden@nas.nasa.gov, Matthew.Alton@anheuser-busch.com, Hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: BSD XFS Port & BSD VFS Rewrite References: <199908191802.LAA25563@usr06.primenet.com> <37BE317E.4B1D7791@newsguy.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org "Daniel C. Sobral" wrote: > > Terry Lambert wrote: > > > > That's kind of the point. No other VFS stacking system out there > > plays by FreeBSD's revamped rules. > > I look around and I see no standards. It is still time to be > experimental. Since someone complained of my meekness, let me restate that... :-) 1) BS. That was not your point. Your point, in which you spent many paragraphs, was that the present way FreeBSD things does it stuff cannot support passing a method through an intermediate host/fs that does not know it. If your "point" was the above, you could just have said "no one else does it this way, so we won't be able to have non-FreeBSD intermediate/frontend/backend hosts". Only that does not prove that "our" way is not right. 2) There is *no* compatibility in the VFS out there. It's a jungle. If we implemented something compatible with anyone else, it would be a first. And given that everything out there have it's problems, it would be a huge mistake to adopt someone's standard just for the sake of being compatible. And if you disagree with point 2, feel free to argue against it. But in no way it will justify that absurd comment you made. Either that paragraph was trying to cover a flaw in your logic, or you just lost your train of thought. It certainly detracted from the content of the message. "You must assume that the intermediate host doesn't play by your rules". Bah. [not that I don't generally agree with you more often than it would be prudent to let it be publicly known :-) ] -- Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS) dcs@newsguy.com dcs@freebsd.org - Can I speak to your superior? - There's some religious debate on that question. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-fs" in the body of the message