Date: Sat, 26 Jul 1997 17:23:29 -0400 From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@TransSys.COM> To: =?KOI8-R?B?4c7E0sXKIP7F0s7P1w==?= <ache@nagual.pp.ru> Cc: "Justin T. Gibbs" <gibbs@plutotech.com>, "Sergei S. Laskavy" <laskavy@cs.msu.su>, freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: /bin/chio: why in /bin ? Message-ID: <199707262123.RAA18551@whizzo.TransSys.COM> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 27 Jul 1997 00:29:58 %2B0400." <Pine.BSF.3.96.970727002703.1364C-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net> References: <Pine.BSF.3.96.970727002703.1364C-100000@lsd.relcom.eu.net>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> On Sat, 26 Jul 1997, Louis A. Mamakos wrote: > > > chio is not clearly machine dependent. It talks to any SCSI media > > changer device, just like mt works with any SCSI tape device. > > Your words are in conflict: you talk about "not machine dependent" > and "SCSI device". Any phisical device which not exist for all machines > (like memory f.e.) IS machine dependance. SCSI not exist for all machines. So what other types of tape drives are likely to be installed on a FreeBSD system? Or media changes? Ones hung off the floppy controller? There are machines with no tape drives at all, and machines with no network interfaces. Yet /bin/rcp exists which isn't useful if you don't have a network interface and /bin/domainname which is isn't useful unless you happen to be using NIS. By machine dependent, I take this to mean "PC architecture" or CPU-type dependent, not based on what selection of peripherals happen to be installed on any particular system. I suppose you could make the system architecturally "pure" this way, yet the result isn't likely to be either useful or practical. louiehome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199707262123.RAA18551>