David Wolfskill wrote:
>
> >Irrespective of all the valid reasons to allow for wiring (but not
> >mandate), static drive numbering is not BIOS compatible (thus, not
> >DOS compatible). This violates POLA.
>
> I'm at least as much against POLA violations as anyone... but the real
> POLA violation I see is the apparent dependence on the BIOS, since it is
> "controlled" by a process external to the UNIX environment.
It is not a matter of dependence (which, obviously, does not exist).
Is a matter of:
1) Doing the same as "everyone else" (meaning, here, the most common
background for newbies; if one is not a newbie, POLA doesn't comes
into play for this particular issue).
2) Having the OS see disks in the same way/ordering as the program
that boot it does, *unless explicitly instructed otherwise*.
> "DOS compatability" is not one of my concerns; I have difficulty imagining
> a universe in which it would become one. Indeed, if someone were to
> claim "DOS compatibility" for something, I would have no way of knowing
> what that was supposed to imply, since I'm nearly completely unfamiliar
> with DOS. (The few times I've tried to use it, I would get different
> results from the same actions on my part, so I gave up.)
:-)
> And yes, I realize that neither my experiences nor perspective may be
> representative of anyone else.
Which, unfortunately, plays a part in POLA.
--
Daniel C. Sobral (8-DCS)
d...@newsguy.com
d...@freebsd.org
"FreeBSD is Yoda, Linux is Luke Skywalker."
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majord...@freebsd.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
