Hubert Feyrer <hubert@feyrer.de> writes:

> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005, matthew green wrote:
> > i don't want "vnconfig" to ever be removed.  i don't see any point.
> 
> The point is consistence between vnd(4), vndconfig(8) and
> vndcompress(1, not yet committed).
> 
> But as this is aparently such a big problem, i'll put that down on the
> list now... seems NetBSD isn't about doing things the right way any
> more.

Changing the names of things for "consistency" is not the "right
thing". Backwards compatibility is a key factor in evaluating what the
"right thing" is.

If vnd(4) did not exist and you were introducing all of these, you
would have a point. As it is, you are talking about changing a decade
of historical practice. If we didn't care about backwards
compatibility we could change a lot of things (libc.12, anybody?), but
we do care.

You might as well lobby for creat(2) to be renamed create(2), because
it's the proper spelling.

        - Nathan