Andrew Brown <atatat@atatdot.net> writes:
> >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.

Uh, but, little or none of the code was taken verbatim from anyplace.

And, further, our ffs is interoperable with lots of other systems
UFS...


> >'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?

I never have -- in fact i'd bet that nobody ever has -- but unless i'm
mistaken people _have_ booted off of ms-dos file systems, for
instance.

what do you mean "completely and totally interoperate"?  In general,
certainly, they've not had as much shake-out as ffs.  Certainly, some
of them can't support some of the weirder features of the UNIX file
system (device nodes, symlinks) or have different path name
limitations.

The interesting here in your question above is that you lump ext2fs
and lfs into the "when was the last time you did..." question.  if
you're going to take them out of the 'native' file system circle, you
leave _only_ ffs...



cgd
-- 
Chris Demetriou - cgd@netbsd.org - http://www.netbsd.org/People/Pages/cgd.html
Disclaimer: Not speaking for NetBSD, just expressing my own opinion.