Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Fri, 05 Mar 1999 17:04:21 -0800
From:      Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>
To:        David Wolfskill <dhw@whistle.com>
Cc:        freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: ATAPI and ATAPI_STATIC with the new ATA* driver? 
Message-ID:  <199903060104.RAA27943@dingo.cdrom.com>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 03 Mar 1999 10:26:57 PST." <199903031826.KAA98780@pau-amma.whistle.com> 

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >Date: Thu, 04 Mar 1999 02:53:09 +0900
> >From: "Daniel C. Sobral" <dcs@newsguy.com>
> 
> >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.)

"DOS compatibility" is irrelevant.  What is at issue here is _firmware_ 
compatability.

-- 
\\  Sometimes you're ahead,       \\  Mike Smith
\\  sometimes you're behind.      \\  mike@smith.net.au
\\  The race is long, and in the  \\  msmith@freebsd.org
\\  end it's only with yourself.  \\  msmith@cdrom.com




To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199903060104.RAA27943>