from my understanding, the biggest difference is that New-bus is being designed to eventually delegate 'config' to a very minor role where newconfig (as it's name suggests' maintains 'config' a s a major component.. It has been a long standing goal of FreeBSD to make the system as dynamic as possible. My personal goal is to see it more dynamically configurable than NT with all it's DLLs.
julian On Mon, 19 Apr 1999, Tomoaki NISHIYAMA wrote: > jkh> > I don't go to new-bus, this direction is disunion of BSDs. It is > jkh> > bad decision. > jkh> > jkh> I'm sorry that you feel this way, but I can only re-state that better > jkh> communication could have prevented this in the first place and hope > jkh> that you've learned your own lessons from this exercise. If you > jkh> haven't, then a good opportunity for learning has simply been wasted. > > One problem on the decision is that it was not based > on a judge that new-bus is technically or philosophically > superior to newconfig framework but you stated > jkh> the difference with new-bus being > jkh> that we were working just that much more closely with Doug Rabson (and > jkh> the others helping him) and had already used the new-bus stuff for > jkh> FreeBSD/alpha. > > Nakagawa would not be so upset if you could convince him > that new-bus were superior. > > -------- > Tomoaki Nishiyama > e-mail:tomo...@biol.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp > Department of Biological Sciences, > Graduate School of Science, The University of Tokyo > > > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org > with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
