Date: Fri, 09 Feb 1996 14:21:50 -0800 From: "Jordan K. Hubbard" <jkh@time.cdrom.com> To: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org> Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: FS PATCHES: THE NEXT GENERATION Message-ID: <21606.823904510@time.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 09 Feb 1996 09:13:01 MST." <199602091613.JAA10469@phaeton.artisoft.com>
index | next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail
> I think that *not* requiring the implementation of the persistance > facility (think netbooting, again) prior to deployment of a mandatory > devfs is a *major* incentive to cause the feature to be added by the > people who feel they need it. The lag on the developement of the > ability to save "boot -c" data after "boot -c" was implemented was not > an inherently bad thing. But -c was never a critical part of the system, and certainly not *mandatory*. I remain unconvinced by your arguments, I'm afraid. I don't think that devfs should ever be *mandatory* until the current semantics, which are known even if not necessarily loved by a generation of UNIX hackers, are preserved. Let's make it optional, sure, but mandatory? In its proposed form? You've got to be kidding. Jordanhome | help
Want to link to this message? Use this
URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?21606.823904510>