H. Peter Anvin on Tue 6/02 13:03 -0800:
> > In any case, it's not going to happen [direct or included maps.]
>
> In the case of file maps *ONLY*,
Personally, I would much rather have direct maps than included ones if I
had to choose between them; included maps can almost always be
redesigned not to have includes. Sure, if one wants a direct mount,
just put it in fstab. But then you have to do it on each system and
can't just change the single map on the NIS server.
> I might end up deciding to support it because people whine enough
> about it.
Heh, yes, because they have shops with a bunch of Suns that were
pre-existing and actually want the Linux machines to *work* with their
existing infrastructure?
> On the other hand, I would like to point out that THEY ARE LOCAL FILES
> DAMMIT... so "interoperability" is a pretty bad argument.
Agree on point of included maps...but I don't understand why you are so
vehemently opposed to direct maps.
Anyways I'm not ungrateful...it's better than nothing certainly :) And
works great in the usual case. You folks have done a fine job and don't
need to hear more `whining' from us admins that have to make things
work and explain to our "Linux sucks" biggot coworkers why these kludges
are necessary for our Solaris systems to interoperate.
