Subject: Re: Nightmare File Corruptions with 1.6Q - FFS?
To: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Martin Weber <Ephaeton@gmx.net>
Date: 04/12/2003 10:24:42
On Sat, Apr 12, 2003 at 01:15:04AM -0700, Greywolf wrote:
> JD> We did not for LFS, and there is no reason to do for FFS/UFSv2, IMHO.
> Yes, but I think you're missing the point that ffs is *the primary
> filesystem type* for NetBSD. LFS is still "Experimental".
I think so too
> Mind you, I'm well aware of the -current mantra ("...it may not run
> (correctly) or even compile on any given day.").
Up till now this has struck me as a kind of ensurance no one's going
around yelling NetBSD sucks when he's testing -current ;> I have to
say that after year(s?) of -current surfing, I've NEVER had a problem
like that when I only relied on the "primary" stuff (no softdeps [will
those ever be stable ?] for example), which saddens me. Uhm I mean it's
sad that we've broken that myth for me now too :)
> NetBSD: the second best thing you can get for free.
What is the best thing ? Death ?