Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:24:01 -0700 (MST) From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Cc: terry@lambert.org, julian@ref.tfs.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FS PATCHES: THE NEXT GENERATION Message-ID: <199602092224.PAA11368@phaeton.artisoft.com> In-Reply-To: <21606.823904510@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 9, 96 02:21:50 pm
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. So you would maintain that the ability to run legacy applications is a critical part of the system? What constitutes a legacy app? Any shell script since V7? I'm afraid I can't agree with you. > 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. What, precisely, do you think its proposed form *is*? I think we may be looking at different proposals... Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602092224.PAA11368>