Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 14:21:50 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FS PATCHES: THE NEXT GENERATION Message-ID: <21606.823904510@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Feb 1996 09:13:01 MST." <199602091613.JAA10469@phaeton.artisoft.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> I think that *not* requiring the implementation of the persistance > facility (think netbooting, again) prior to deployment of a mandatory > devfs is a *major* incentive to cause the feature to be added by the > people who feel they need it. The lag on the developement of the > ability to save "boot -c" data after "boot -c" was implemented was not > an inherently bad thing. But -c was never a critical part of the system, and certainly not *mandatory*. I remain unconvinced by your arguments, I'm afraid. I don't think that devfs should ever be *mandatory* until the current semantics, which are known even if not necessarily loved by a generation of UNIX hackers, are preserved. Let's make it optional, sure, but mandatory? In its proposed form? You've got to be kidding. Jordan
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21606.823904510>