From owner-freebsd-current Fri Feb 9 14:28:13 1996 Return-Path: owner-current Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) id OAA19662 for current-outgoing; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:28:13 -0800 (PST) Received: from phaeton.artisoft.com (phaeton.Artisoft.COM [198.17.250.211]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.7.3/8.7.3) with SMTP id OAA19618 for ; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 14:28:09 -0800 (PST) Received: (from terry@localhost) by phaeton.artisoft.com (8.6.11/8.6.9) id PAA11368; Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:24:01 -0700 From: Terry Lambert Message-Id: <199602092224.PAA11368@phaeton.artisoft.com> Subject: Re: FS PATCHES: THE NEXT GENERATION To: jkh@time.cdrom.com (Jordan K. Hubbard) Date: Fri, 9 Feb 1996 15:24:01 -0700 (MST) Cc: terry@lambert.org, julian@ref.tfs.com, current@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <21606.823904510@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 9, 96 02:21:50 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-current@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > > 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.