Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
On Thursday,  4 July 2002 at 19:20:00 +1000, Bruce Evans wrote:
On Wed, 3 Jul 2002, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote:

In message [EMAIL PROTECTED]"><[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Bruce Evans writes:
This is mostly because resources have been diverted away from updating
working code to write a second system.
Make that third system, the current slice/label code is our second
system, and I don't think the resources have been diverted as much
as defected.

Either way, I know you don't want either of DEVFS or GEOM, I think
I know where you come from, I just happen to not agree that we
should stay stuck back there.
I disagree that DEVFS and GEOM are forwards.

I don't know enough about GEOM to embrace it whole-heartedly, but I
think you'd be hard pressed to find anybody who disagrees that devfs
is a forward.  It may need some improvement, but it's so much more
logical than what we had before that I really think you should explain
your objections.
DEVFS would be an improvement for me, when upgrading boxes by adding additional hardware, so I don't have to browse the dmesg, coz I will just look up /dev (since it only shows installed hardware with DEVFS). Same for GEOM, if all that will work what's described on phk's website about GEOM, then it's definitely an improvement too. I'm especially seeing forward for Copy-on-Write and encryption functionality.


Reply via email to