Subject: Re: SGI XFS filesystem
To: Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: Chris G. Demetriou <email@example.com>
Date: 05/28/1999 13:37:37
Andrew Brown <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> they're not "native" filesystems though, so they're kind of emulated.
> perhaps it would be better as "compat"?
What does 'native' mean?
we can read them and write them via the VFS just like we can for
allegedly 'native' file systems.
Sure, the 'standards' and 'primary implementations' may be some place
* i don't think anybody's going to claim that NetBSD's FFS or
NFS implementations are the 'primary' implementations.
* even in the 'native' file systems there are file systems which
didn't originate here. E.g. where does the ext2fs code
live? where did the ideas behind LFS come from?
'native' vs not is an artificial, and i'd say useless, distinction in
Chris Demetriou - email@example.com - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.