Subject: Re: LFS frailty vs. datestamping [Was Re: /dev/clock pseudodevice]
To: gabriel rosenkoetter <email@example.com>
From: Greywolf <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 07/29/2001 12:00:23
On Sun, 29 Jul 2001, gabriel rosenkoetter wrote:
# Sure, it moves blocks around. So what. Don't use it as your boot
# disk. You shouldn't be using RAID as your boot disk either, but you
# sure as hell should be using RAID in certain applications.
# Alternately, hack either of these file systems to ignore the first X
# blocks of a disk and put your boot block there. But rather than
# bitching, how 'bout some code?
1. "So what" kind of sidesteps the issue, don't you think?
2. I am *not* bitching, I am observing and evaluating why in the world
I would ever want to use LFS in the first place, and it just seemed
to me to be a bit frail from all the comments I'd seen on the list.
3. If I could write FS code, I'd have submitted already. If I can get
to a point where I can write FS code and implement a generic journaling
layer, you can be sure I will pose it for integration into the tree.
4. You have my sincere apology for offending your sensibilities.
Hack on NetBSD, and your code runs on over 20 architectures.