From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jun 23 18:30:30 1998 Return-Path: Received: (from majordom@localhost) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA22487 for freebsd-hackers-outgoing; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:30:30 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG) Received: from kithrup.com (kithrup.com [205.179.156.40]) by hub.freebsd.org (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id SAA22385 for ; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:30:16 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sef@kithrup.com) Received: (from sef@localhost) by kithrup.com (8.8.8/8.8.8) id SAA06590; Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:30:14 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from sef) Date: Tue, 23 Jun 1998 18:30:14 -0700 (PDT) From: Sean Eric Fagan Message-Id: <199806240130.SAA06590@kithrup.com> To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Reply-To: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Heads up: block devices to disappear! In-Reply-To: <315.898610601.1.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@critter.freebsd.dk> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Sender: owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In article <315.898610601.1.kithrup.freebsd.hackers@critter.freebsd.dk> you write: >Unless compelling evidence to the contrary is presented, I will remove >blockdevices as a concept from FreeBSD RSN. > >In the future all devices will be character devices, and mounts will >happen using these as well. Wow, I am sitting here, remembering arguments by certain freebsd core members a couple of years ago about how linux' lack of block devices was a defficiency. Tell me, how am I supposed to do direct, un-cached accesses? How about all the auxillary programs, some of which are in ports, which expect to be able to use block devices -- and do stats to check on it? This is another not-so-good idea. Better than the last one, really, but still not a very good idea. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message