>> they're not "native" filesystems though, so they're kind of emulated.
>> perhaps it would be better as "compat"?
>
>What does 'native' mean?

i meant something along the lines of "verbatim and interoperable
copies" of filesystems from other operating systems vs. the stuff like
ffs or lfs or ufs (or whatever you call it) that "came with" netbsd.

>we can read them and write them via the VFS just like we can for
>allegedly 'native' file systems.

yep, and admirably so.  :)

>Sure, the 'standards' and 'primary implementations' may be some place
>else, but:
>
>	* i don't think anybody's going to claim that NetBSD's FFS or
>	  NFS implementations are the 'primary' implementations.

well...i'll beg the minor nit that they have the most "support" and if
was setting up a new box, i certainly wouldn't pick ext2fs as my root
filesystem format, with ntfs for /usr and adosfs for /usr/local.  i'm
gonna pick something that's "native".

which is probably about as effective as claiming that netbsd is unix.

>	* 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
>this case.

i'm just wondering about the implications.  do they all completely and
totally interoperate?  when was the last time you booted netbsd from
an ntfs or ext2fs (or even lfs) slice?

-- 
|-----< "CODE WARRIOR" >-----|
codewarrior@daemon.org             * "ah!  i see you have the internet
twofsonet@graffiti.com (Andrew Brown)                that goes *ping*!"
andrew@crossbar.com       * "information is power -- share the wealth."