Answering Terry's comment about LFS: I had about 90% of the LFS development complete (rewritten to eliminate much of the unnecessary and inefficient copying.) At that time, Kirk had started softupdates, but I also KNEW and UNDERSTOOD the limitations of LFS.
In essense, after CAREFULLY reading and understanding Ganger and Patt (and knowing about Kirk's work), I had decided that LFS would have been a folly. (It would have been a maintenance issue, people would have 'gotten used' to the feature, and would have been a wasted allocation of development resources.) LFS (as existent in 4.4) was an interesting experiment, and was excluded (by me) because of the amount of ongoing support (including bringing it up to product quality.) If you look at the original code -- you'll notice ALOT of unnecessary copying and primitive memory management. It was DEFINITELY a good research project, and perhaps worthwhile if softupdates hadn't happened. John _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
