Haai,

On Wed, June 6, 2007 13:10, Allen Briggs wrote:
>>[snip]
>
> I think you're talking to the wrong crowd about "obsolescent" or
> "outright obsolete".  :-)

My opinion does not vary according to the crowd I'm talking to.

>
>>[snip]
>
> If you're not familiar with the term "bikeshed", I refer you to the
> search engine of your choice.

Sure I am familiar with it -- I simply refuse to get into that activity :)
It's just a poor man's substitute for the Holy Wars...

>
>>[snip]
>
> You state that "it's not [...] nice", but I don't think you've really
> stated why.

Because it's a layer over whatever physical layout there may be; we still
need to define the latter. Also, it's relatively high-level and not to be
interpreted by the boot code -- as it should be, since we don't want code
duplication (along with similar crap) and enter the kernel ASAP.

>
>>[snip]
>
> And a reason for you to do a bit more research to better justify your
> statements / positions.

This fact is largely irrelevant to the total state of my position; it
reinforces one side of it and weakens another a bit; that's all.

>>[snip]
>
> Why is a new format "guaranteed to work"?  My experience has been
> that it's actually difficult to see into the future and get everything
> right.

I guess the trick is not to make too many assumptions about the future :)

> And why is GPT "brain-dead"? I recently implemented a pretty
> basic GPT setup for hire, and it didn't seem all that brain-dead
> to me.

That's either a matter of experience or personal taste -- which one I can
not judge :)

> It seems well-designed for its needs, and not over-engineered
> (like many things in this industry can be!).

I've never denied that. However, I'm not sure of the fact that the same
needs will continue to exist for very long.

>
>>[snip]
>
> Now that sounds like fun...  Thanks for the suggestion!
> ( not that I would expect it to be accepted into the tree, but it might
>   be a nice diversion...  :-)

:X

You're welcome, and good luck... :)

>
>>[snip]
>
> So you're suggesting that we put USB sticks on a Windows (or Mac or
> Linux or FreeBSD or other) system and share the device for us to use
> them on NetBSD? That seems less than useful.

No, I'm simply suggesting that if we want to share a device utilizing a
master/slave-type bus, it's better to have it fixed in one system and have
the others access it from there

> I mean that if I have a USB stick formatted for use on one system,
> I should be able to walk over to any other system with USB (be it
> Mac, Windows, Linux, DragonflyBSD, MorphOS, or whatever) and have
> it "just work".  Perhaps with partitions for different filesystem
> types.  Perhaps with one common filesystem.

We have networks for that.

>
> In any case, I do believe this is a discussion that we've had in
> the past.  Please read the archives.  If you still want to discuss
> it after reading the archives, then please enumerate the technical
> issues you have with the direction that the project has chosen to
> take.

Alright, but my position will most likely not change: UNIX outwits most
other OSes, NetBSD outwits most other Unices, and with the right guidance
we can fix the remaining issues (especially ones that have plagued UNIX
for a long, long time) and evolve into a Plan 69 and beyond.

Needless to say, I want computing out of it's infancy and NetBSD, together
with a flow-based system for high level applications, has the capability
to get the software end of things right once and for all...

...until we've replaced the computer with some other technology, that is.

Let's get computing to actually work! :)

Baai,

De Zeurkous
-----------

Friggin' Machines!

>
> -allen
>