Subject: Re: Another changer, another changer problem
To: email@example.com, C Kane <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: John Nemeth <email@example.com>
Date: 10/03/1998 15:18:14
On Oct 1, 10:18pm, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
} In message <199810020212.TAA01865@shell9.ba.best.com>, C Kane writes:
} >Even if "MAKEDEV sd47" worked, it is easier to refer to that
} >device as c2t15d0 than sd47, because the name makes more sense.
Really? With just a quick glance at the machine can you tell me
what "c2" is? Nine times out of ten you won't be able to do that. 99
per cent of the time I do system administration remotely, and
therefore can't look at the physical hardware. "c2t15d0" is just as
arbitrary as "sd47", except that it is longer and very awkward to
type. Now explain to me why SysV scheme makes so much more sense.
} I hate to be seen as encouraging SYSVism, which we all know is NIH,
} and therefore unacceptable...
One of the reason I run NetBSD is because it is BSD! If NetBSD
were to become yet another variant of SysV, I, and probably many
others, would be looking for another operating system to use. I've
administrated just about every major variant of SysV at one time or
another, and I really don't like it. It has major bloat and a lot of
unnecessary complexity (especially in the areas of I/O and boot time
configuration). If you want SysV, then you know where to find it.
Heck, Solaris x86, SCO OpenServer, and SCO UnixWare are all free for
personal and non-commercial use, so you can have your pick. If you
look at the lineage of SCO UnixWare, you will note that it is the
reference implementation of SVR4, which should keep you guys happy.
Now, stop trying to turn NetBSD into yet another variant of SysV!!!
Note, that this rant isn't just aimed at you, but rather everybody
that is trying to turn NetBSD into SysV (*especially* Greg, who keeps
restarting this idiotic discussion every few months).
} But this is a damn good system. I like it. It is the number one thing
} I miss about administering SVR4. No matter *WHAT* is attached, I like
} to have a way to say "*I* know that this disk will always, forever, be
} SCSI ID 2 on the 1st SCSI controller attached to this system".
Tell me what "the 1st SCSI controller attached to this system"
is. In general, you can't. Heck, you can't even depend on the OS not
to re-arrange the controllers on you. That blows your whole argument
out of the water. On the HP I have, c0 is a card sitting in an EISA
(aka GSC) slot, and c1 is the "Built-in SCSI". Does that make any
sense? Of course not.
} I really like that. I'm into it. I prefer 'sd0' for stable parts of a
} system, but I'd love to have /dev/disk/cNtNdN or something similar.
Personally, I hate it! It's ugly and awkward as hell. Also, as
has been pointed out, it doesn't work in the real world, the way you
guys fantasize it working. Once the system is setup, I really don't
care where my disks are located, and any new disks can simply be
tagged onto the end of the list. Why should I have to remember to use
'mount /dev/dsk/c1t2d0 /cdrom' (taken from an HP-UX system just now; I
had to use ioscan to remind myself where the cdrom drive is) as
opposed to simply 'mount /dev/cd0a /cdrom' in order to view a cdrom?
The first command is really stupid. This idiotic device naming scheme
is one of the things I really hate about having to administrate SysV
machines (currently Solaris 2.5 and HP-UX 10.20).
}-- End of excerpt from email@example.com