Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2004 10:27:46 +0100 From: Nicolas Rachinsky <list@rachinsky.de> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Discussion on the future of floppies in 5.x and 6.x Message-ID: <20040111092746.GA836@pc5.i.0x5.de> In-Reply-To: <xzp3camsuyu.fsf@dwp.des.no> References: <20040108163724.GA26745@lpthe.jussieu.fr> <200401101945.27234.wes@softweyr.com> <400108FC.9010008@iconoplex.co.uk> <200401110048.52747.wes@softweyr.com> <40011237.3000409@iconoplex.co.uk> <xzp3camsuyu.fsf@dwp.des.no>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
* Dag-Erling Smørgrav <des@des.no> [2004-01-11 10:19 +0100]: > Paul Robinson <paul@iconoplex.co.uk> writes: > > Understood. I just think saying "let's get rid of floppies" is > > shooting a dog that happens to be near to hand because you don't like > > that dog, to stretch the analogy. > > I don't think you have any idea how difficult it is (and has been for > a couple of years now) just to keep the install floppies alive. The > kernel keeps growing, and the amount of "must-have" features (such as > acpi) keeps growing, and every time the boot floppies overflow we have > to toss out yet another driver that about a dozen people vehemently > tell us they can't live without. Why not split the kernel onto 2 disks? The code to do this is already there and seems to work. And the people who think they absolutly need disks would have to deal with 4 disks, but that would be better than no disks. Look at the commit history of /usr/src/lib/libstand/splitfs.c. Is there a reason not to use it? Nicolas
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040111092746.GA836>