"Daniel C. Sobral" wrote:
>
> Terry Lambert wrote:
> >
> > That's kind of the point. No other VFS stacking system out there
> > plays by FreeBSD's revamped rules.
>
> I look around and I see no standards. It is still time to be
> experimental.
Since someone complained of my meekness, let me restate that... :-)
1) BS. That was not your point. Your point, in which you spent many
paragraphs, was that the present way FreeBSD things does it stuff
cannot support passing a method through an intermediate host/fs that
does not know it.
If your "point" was the above, you could just have said "no one else
does it this way, so we won't be able to have non-FreeBSD
intermediate/frontend/backend hosts". Only that does not prove that
"our" way is not right.
2) There is *no* compatibility in the VFS out there. It's a jungle.
If we implemented something compatible with anyone else, it would be
a first. And given that everything out there have it's problems, it
would be a huge mistake to adopt someone's standard just for the
sake of being compatible.
And if you disagree with point 2, feel free to argue against it. But
in no way it will justify that absurd comment you made.
Either that paragraph was trying to cover a flaw in your logic, or
you just lost your train of thought. It certainly detracted from the
content of the message. "You must assume that the intermediate host
doesn't play by your rules". Bah.
[not that I don't generally agree with you more often than it would
be prudent to let it be publicly known :-) ]
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Can I speak to your superior?
- There's some religious debate on that question.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
