From owner-freebsd-current Wed Mar 3 10:28:24 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from pau-amma.whistle.com (s205m64.whistle.com [207.76.205.64]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B1C914F87 for ; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:27:14 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dhw@whistle.com) Received: (from dhw@localhost) by pau-amma.whistle.com (8.9.2/8.9.2) id KAA98780 for freebsd-current@freebsd.org; Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:26:57 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 3 Mar 1999 10:26:57 -0800 (PST) From: David Wolfskill Message-Id: <199903031826.KAA98780@pau-amma.whistle.com> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ATAPI and ATAPI_STATIC with the new ATA* driver? In-Reply-To: <36DD7705.D2D087FC@newsguy.com> Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG >Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 02:53:09 +0900 >From: "Daniel C. Sobral" >Irrespective of all the valid reasons to allow for wiring (but not >mandate), static drive numbering is not BIOS compatible (thus, not >DOS compatible). This violates POLA. I'm at least as much against POLA violations as anyone... but the real POLA violation I see is the apparent dependence on the BIOS, since it is "controlled" by a process external to the UNIX environment. "DOS compatability" is not one of my concerns; I have difficulty imagining a universe in which it would become one. Indeed, if someone were to claim "DOS compatibility" for something, I would have no way of knowing what that was supposed to imply, since I'm nearly completely unfamiliar with DOS. (The few times I've tried to use it, I would get different results from the same actions on my part, so I gave up.) And yes, I realize that neither my experiences nor perspective may be representative of anyone else. david -- David Wolfskill UNIX System Administrator dhw@whistle.com voice: (650) 577-7158 pager: (650) 371-4621 To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message