On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 15:52:25 +0100
Juan Rodriguez Hervella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> probably wrote:

> On Wednesday 21 January 2004 14:53, Sergey 'DoubleF' Zaharchenko wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Jan 2004 13:26:25 +0100
> >
> > Juan Rodriguez Hervella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> probably wrote:
> > > Hello, please send the reply to myself cause Im not
> > > subscribe to the list
> > >
> > > I've got a FreeBSD-5.1 installation in /dev/ad0s3,
> > > but I usually run FreeBSD-4.9 from /dev/ad0s2.
> >
> > 5.x uses UFS2 by default. 4.x does not understand UFS2. In short, you
> > either re-newfs the 5.x partition to be UFS1, or you are short of luck
> > this time.
> I can not believe you !, 
> I guess there is (or there will be) some work-in-progress to have
> UFS2 support on FreeBSD-4.X systems.

If only by you:(. I'd suggest you make your 5.x partition UFS1 and be
satisfied with that - that's pretty much all you can do.

> Or are we following "Windows way of life" here ?

If 5.x couldn't understand 4.x, that would be a bad thing. But forcing
5.x to be absolutely compatible with 4.x is another bad thing.

If you were forced to stay that compatible all the time, you wouldn't be
able to do major architectural changes. If everyone thought the same
way, an Athlon or a P4 would be a 80286, only MUCH faster (which it is
for most olden DOS or Windows/16 programs, so your definition of
`Windows way of life' is definitely contrary to mine).

You don't complain 4.x can't run 5.x binaries, do you?:)

If I traveled to the end of the rainbow
As Dame Fortune did intend,
Murphy would be there to tell me
The pot's at the other end.
                -- Bert Whitney

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to