On Sun, 19 Sep 1999, Chuck Robey wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Sep 1999, Julian Elischer wrote:
>
> > DEVFS itself works fine however a subsystem it required to be a useful
> > abstraction was vandalised and stripped out by some people who "didn't get
> > it" and it has not yet been replaced by equivalent code.
>
> It seems more correct (to me) to state that there was a furious
> disagreement over whether or not to allow some memory of file permissions
> in devfs. Since there was never any agreement, DEVFS has smoldered. I
> think there's general agreement it would be a good thing to have, but that
> argument over how to keep user configurations must be handled.
file permissions were not relevant to the code that was ripped out (the
stackable disk partitionning layers) (called SLICE).
>
> Saying it was dumped by people who "didn't get it" isn't quite correct,
> just people who didn't agree with your viewpoint on permissions. It
> wasn't only your viewpoint, I know there were many other highly qualified
> folks who agreed with you, but there wasn't much spirit of compromise
> evinced.
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Chuck Robey | Interests include C programming, Electronics,
> 213 Lakeside Dr. Apt. T-1 | communications, and signal processing.
> Greenbelt, MD 20770 | I run picnic.mat.net: FreeBSD-current(i386) and
> (301) 220-2114 | jaunt.mat.net : FreeBSD-current(Alpha)
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
