On Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 09:32:27PM -0700, Greg Earle wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 03, 1998 at 03:18:14PM -0700, John Nemeth wrote:
> >> 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).
> > 
> > There's a difference between turning BSD into SysV and importing good ideas
> > from SysV.
> 
> Are there any?  I certainly don't consider /dev/dsk/cWtXdYsZ one of them.
> (Having once been bitten by an errant "boot -r" on Solaris 2, like Rick Kelly)

I'd say we won't know unless there's discussion of the issues.

Besides, 'good' is in the eye of the SysAdmin, or some mixed-metaphor like
that.

> If we're going to consider radical changes, why not go whole-hog and
> implement Veritas' VxVM and its abstraction away of the physical device layer?

Although this sounds like sarcasm to me, it begs the question: Are radical
changes not open to discussion? I'd summarize my side of the answer to that
one as 'no radical change for the sake of change, but rational discussion/
deliberation on the values of _any_ change, radical or not.'

> Far better that than these repeated System V-ficiation attempts by people
> from that background, like Mr. Woods.  I'm with John Nemeth on this one ...

When the comments repeatedly get personal and accusatory, I get leary of
the effect on the mailing-lists. People who may have valuable contributions
to make may be reluctant enough to get involved to begin with. When users
see personal comments like the two quoted here I fear it may disincent
participation.

-- 
David Maxwell, david@vex.net|david@maxwell.net --> Mastery of UNIX, like
mastery of language, offers real freedom. The price of freedom is always dear,
but there's no substitute. Personally, I'd rather pay for my freedom than live
in a bitmapped, pop-up-happy dungeon like NT. - Thomas Scoville