Jeffrey 'jf' Lim wrote:
On 15 Mar 2008 21:37:45 -0700, Unix Fan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
They are the same thing, "FFS" is an acronym for Berkeley's "Fast File
System" - which is a decedent of AT&T UFS (Unix File System).
I agree, the naming conventions between the BSD's are unique... but see
the following and just accept the fact UFS2 or FFS2 are partially supported
as Otto explained.
http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2003-April/001444.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_File_System
ok, aside from the "FFS on UFS, or UFS on FFS" disagreement, both documents
are in agreement that UFS and FFS refer to different things?
-jf
--
In the meantime, here is your PSA:
"It's so hard to write a graphics driver that open-sourcing it would not
help."
-- Andrew Fear, Software Product Manager, NVIDIA Corporation
http://kerneltrap.org/node/7228
I am not a kernel specialist, but as far as I know, the OpenBSD
volume label has 16 entries.
While FreeBSD UFS also has 16 entries.
At least both have first 8 entries OS specific, last 8 alien systems.
A FreeBSD slice is read as unknown under OpenBSD.
Would an UFS slice be recognized, it would use all the available alien
labels,
i to p.
Further problem, FreeBSD will soon have the UFS FS limited to the 26 letters
of the alphabet. :-)
You can't put 26 labels under an 8 labels space.
Solution could be to install FreeBSD on a FFS2 system.
But this would only be a fist step in the volume label war.
I share space via an ext2fs file system, out of the way in an "extended"
partition.
