Date: Wed, 15 Oct 1997 05:04:45 -0500 (EST) From: Alfred Perlstein <perlsta@cs.sunyit.edu> To: Carlo Dapor <dapor@nessie.inf.ethz.ch> Cc: hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: 86open and implication on FreeBSD Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.971015050206.17544C-100000@server.local.sunyit.edu> In-Reply-To: <199710150823.KAA29036@nessie.ethz.ch>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
it would be wonderful to have standard device names across all types of unices, however, what is the point? you will still have to type in which scsi drive you want to access, so what does the device name have to do with it? you are trying to apply an unnessesary abstraction to the system, remeber a file is a file is a file... :) -Alfred > I read the 86open 'vision'. > To me it sounds nice, having to generate simply one binary for many x86 plat- > forms. > The second thing that comes to my mind is, how are the differences addressed as > far as devices are concerned ? I mean, what if I were to write a nice archiving > utility, it would fully conform to UBF (a term I made up, btw), but I would > still have to know, which partition I'd archive (/dev/sd0s1a or /dev/sda1 - > not so sure here about Linux' corresponding name). > Will there be some kind of flavours ? > Or even better, a mechanism that maps device names, so that You wouldn't have > to bother anymore ?
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971015050206.17544C-100000>