On Oct 4,  2:23am, seebs@plethora.net wrote:
} In message <199810032218.PAA09322@cue.bc.ca>, John Nemeth writes:
} >     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.
} 
} Depends on the machine.  Sometimes it's sort of convenient.
} 
} >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 add a new drive to a system.  Why should the ID of that new drive
} change the device name of an existing drive?  For that matter, why
} should whether or not it changes the name of an existing drive
} depend on their relative ID's?

     If you wire down the devices then they won't move.  Not wiring
them down is mainly a convenience for bootstrapping/installing
systems.

} I can deal with "new controller changes everything".  I don't change
} controllers as often as I change drives.

     If you wire down the devices completely, then even adding a
controller won't cause them to move.  This is something you can't do
with the SysV scheme that everybody is talking about.  The point is
that the BSD scheme is far more versatile.

} >     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.
} 
} The mere fact that we don't want something exactly like SysV doesn't
} mean we should reject their good ideas.  Having used both, and decided
} I like BSD better, I *still* wish we had /dev/disk/..., runlevels,
} and other features I *used* to administer SysV boxes with less sysadmin
} effort.  I'm sometimes okay with having the machine work a little
} extra to save me time.

     runlevels are another beef.  Every machine I have ever seen or
used was either in single user mode or full multi-user mode.  More
then those two "runlevels" were never used.  Can you give me a
non-contrived example where runlevels are truely useful, instead of
just being an annoyance?

} What's wrong with importing ideas?

     Nothing, if they are truely good ideas.  However, it seems that
the vast majority don't want the SysV features that the you and a
handful of others crave.  They are very things that we despise about
SysV.

} I don't think anyone's arguing that sdX should go away; I just want
} an alternative sometimes.

     Can this be done without excessively bloating the kernel?  So
far, I haven't seen any suggestions of how to do this without making a
major mess out of things.  Sometimes, too much choice is a bad thing,
and you have to make a fundamental decision of which way to go at the
outset.

} >Now, stop trying to turn NetBSD into yet another variant of SysV!!!
} 
} Now, stop exaggerating.  I suppose next we'll be hearing about how we're
} turning NetBSD into yet another variant of Linux, because we've got support
} for hardware now that used to only be supported by Linux.

     This is absurd.

} >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).
} 
} I don't think anyone's trying to turn NetBSD into SysV.
} 
} My comment about NIH was, in fact, directed at people who think importing
} a feature is converting an entire system to a new philosophy.

     If you switch to SysV device naming and init, you will be well on
the way to making NetBSD look like SysV from a system administration
viewpoint.

} You don't like it?  That's fine.  I loathe csh.  I never use it.  I
} don't like it.  I never want it.  It's good that it's in the system.

     See my comment above.  There's a big difference between adding an
extra program to userland and bloating the kernel.

} >     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.
} 
} It may come as a shock, but I base my enthusiasm for it on real world
} experience.

     And, I base my lack of enthusiam on *my* real world experience.

} You should be able to say 'mount /dev/dsk/c1t6d0 /mnt' instead of
} having to re-read the dmesg output to see whether it's 'sd0', 'sd1',
} or 'sd2' at the moment.

     If you wire the device down, it won't move.  Of course, in the
case of a CD-ROM drive, of which most systems only have one, it won't
move anyways.

} >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).
} 
} What you hate, IMHO, is a lack of choice.  I will state that, if I had
} to have only one, I'd rather have the NetBSD naming scheme.  I'd rather
} have both.

     See above.

}-- End of excerpt from seebs@plethora.net