Re: What is VT_TFS?
Terry Lambert wrote: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: *I* worked at TFS, I even kept ref.tfs.com alive after Julian went AWOL. I'm well aware of your checkered past... 8-). I guess Julian might pipe up now about the use of the acronym AWOL... Now, remind me again why historians are so picky about primary sources and secondary sources for historical information... That would be... Dennis Ritchie? 8-) 8-). Are we done now ? I guess... (Apart from Adrians story of course :-) If you think you can beat it out of him... I think we'd all like to sit around the camp fire and listen to it, while stroking our long grey beards... Do I have to grow my beard as long as Groggy's now? I'd better get started... -- Where am I, and what am I doing in this handbasket? Wes Peters Softweyr LLC [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://softweyr.com/ To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Nate Williams wrote: TRW supported a lot of the early 386BSD/FreeBSD effort, back before Walnut Creek CDROM threw in and had us change the version number from 0.1 to 1.0 to make it a bit easier to sell. *Huh* That's revisionist history if I've ever heard it. We did a 1.0 release for FreeBSD because we wanted to differentiate ourselves from 386BSD (lot of bad blood there with the Jolitz's) and NetBSD (which had a 0.8 release at that time). FWIW: This is all archived on Minnie, thanks to Warren Toomey. I believe that Julian was the first corporately employed person, who had at least part of his paid job as working on the 386BSD/FreeBSD code. Bill Jolitz approved a 0.5 interim release of 386BSD, as his recent family troubles and recent contract with Sun precluded him getting the promised 1.0 release out any time soon. Some of the people who later split off NetBSD and released the NetBSD 0.8 release had reverse engineered the patchkit format, and built tools to do the same thing. Not understanding the fact that the patchkit was in fact a simple, single user revision control system that I had hacked together, they released patches of their own, starting at #1000. This resulted in problems with serialization, and, I believe, was one of the main factors in their going off on their own. Progress was made on the 386BSD 0.5 release under the auspices of the patchkit maintainers, who had their position of control because I did not distribute the patchkit patch making shell scripts very widely, in order to ensure serialization, so that the patches, when applied, would work, have proper dependency tracking, and not result in conflicts. There was an angry posting on Usenet by Lynne Jolitz; in it, she claimed that 1/3 of the patchkit was good, 1/3 was benign (but unnecessary), and 1/3 was crap. Then she would not say which 1/3 was which; this pissed off more people than the original claim that only 1/3 of the code was any good. After much sniping back and forth, Bill Jolitz posted, and revoked his previous permission to use the 386BSD name (a common law trademark belonging to him), and therefore he had effectively scuttled the interim release under the 386BSD name. Unwilling to throw away many months of work, it was decided to go forward with the release, under the name FreeBSD 0.1. Walnut Creek CDROM suggested that the version number be changed to 1.0, in order to make it an easier sell on CDROM. Check with Warren, if you don't believe this account. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
TRW supported a lot of the early 386BSD/FreeBSD effort, back before Walnut Creek CDROM threw in and had us change the version number from 0.1 to 1.0 to make it a bit easier to sell. *Huh* That's revisionist history if I've ever heard it. We did a 1.0 release for FreeBSD because we wanted to differentiate ourselves from 386BSD (lot of bad blood there with the Jolitz's) and NetBSD (which had a 0.8 release at that time). FWIW: This is all archived on Minnie, thanks to Warren Toomey. Sure, and I've got archives of it as well. I believe that Julian was the first corporately employed person, who had at least part of his paid job as working on the 386BSD/FreeBSD code. Yes, and the original SCSI system was Julian's, which was later replaced by CAM. Bill Jolitz approved a 0.5 interim release of 386BSD And then Lynn revoked this, and posted a public message to the world stating what obnoxious fiends we were. As the person who spoke with both Bill and Lynn getting their approval (Jordan did as well), I'm *very* familiar with the process. Some of the people who later split off NetBSD and released the NetBSD 0.8 release had reverse engineered the patchkit format, and built tools to do the same thing. Actually, no. It was the person who was going to take it from me (I could name him, but it wouldn't do much good). The new maintainer didn't do anything or respond to email for over 3 months, so Jordan took it over from where I left off. NetBSD was Chris Demetriou's child after he got fed up with Bill's promises never coming true. I was the third committer on what would later become the NetBSD development box, but I still naively assumed that Bill's promises would eventually come to fruition. NetBSD happened when Lynn's famous email was sent out claiming we were all evil incarnate, and that no-one understood them anymore. Soon afterward NetBSD 0.8 was released, but Adam Glass (the owner of the second account on the NetBSD development box) was a big 68K fan, so his influence (as well as Chris's) made NetBSD into a cross-platform OS. Progress was made on the 386BSD 0.5 release under the auspices of the patchkit maintainers, who had their position of control because I did not distribute the patchkit patch making shell scripts very widely, in order to ensure serialization, so that the patches, when applied, would work, have proper dependency tracking, and not result in conflicts. Actually, all of the patchkit maintainers (myself, Jordan, and Rod) had access to your shell software. However, it turned out that avoiding conflicts was hard, because serialization often required patches upon patches upon patches upon patches, and at some point, the creation/maintenance of the patchkit was greater than building a new release. (Plus the fact that you couldn't install the patches w/out a running system, and the running system couldn't be installed on certain hardware w/out patches, causing a catch-22). There was an angry posting on Usenet by Lynne Jolitz; in it, she claimed that 1/3 of the patchkit was good, 1/3 was benign (but unnecessary), and 1/3 was crap. Then she would not say which 1/3 was which; this pissed off more people than the original claim that only 1/3 of the code was any good. After much sniping back and forth, Bill Jolitz posted, and revoked his previous permission to use the 386BSD name (a common law trademark belonging to him), and therefore he had effectively scuttled the interim release under the 386BSD name. Close, but the original posting was by Bill, and the revokation was done by Lynn. Unwilling to throw away many months of work, it was decided to go forward with the release, under the name FreeBSD 0.1. Walnut Creek CDROM suggested that the version number be changed to 1.0, in order to make it an easier sell on CDROM. Check with Warren, if you don't believe this account. I was involved with the entire affair, and Warren's archive doesn't include much of what later became 'core' email. Also, it doesn't include the phone conversations with Bill and Lynn, which (obviously) aren't in the public domain. Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Nate, You're replying to Terry for christs sake! What did you expect if not revisionist $anything ? Which reminds me, Adrian still oves us his story about ref :-) Poul, you're going off again, without regard for facts. Remember the last time FreeBSD history came up, I proved Nate mistaken in his claim that my authorship of the original 386BSD FAQ was revisionist history. You can check these facts out in the archives on Minnie; I can also provide almost every email I ever sent or received (if it resulted in a response from me to the author), from 1988 forward, since I have it all archived, since even at the time, I felt it might end up being an important historical record. At the very least, it has provided me with a rich source of information from which to draw, in order to study Open Source projects in general, and 386BSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD, in particular. I am only willing to open up the non-private email sent or received, and then only with considerable incentive (it is a very large archive). Alternately, you can go to Warren's archive and look there, before making accusations of revisionism. However, if you insist, I can and will happily quote large sections of it to this mailing list, in support of any contended claims of inaccuracy... Thanks, -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
You're replying to Terry for christs sake! What did you expect if not revisionist $anything ? Which reminds me, Adrian still oves us his story about ref :-) Poul, you're going off again, without regard for facts. Remember the last time FreeBSD history came up, I proved Nate mistaken in his claim that my authorship of the original 386BSD FAQ was revisionist history. No you didn't. You changed the questions. :) You can check these facts out in the archives on Minnie; I can also provide almost every email I ever sent or received (if it resulted in a response from me to the author), from 1988 forward, since I have it all archived, since even at the time, I felt it might end up being an important historical record. At the very least, it has provided me with a rich source of information from which to draw, in order to study Open Source projects in general, and 386BSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD, in particular. You're not the only pack-rat around here. Be careful of your claims, since they could come back to bite you. Nate ps. I still have my phone-logs of my conversations with Bill as well. ;) To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Nate Williams wrote: Bill Jolitz approved a 0.5 interim release of 386BSD And then Lynn revoked this, and posted a public message to the world stating what obnoxious fiends we were. Actually, Lynne didn't have the right to do this; the trademark was Bill's, so the revocation wasn't valid until Bill did it. Some of the people who later split off NetBSD and released the NetBSD 0.8 release had reverse engineered the patchkit format, and built tools to do the same thing. Actually, no. It was the person who was going to take it from me (I could name him, but it wouldn't do much good). The new maintainer didn't do anything or respond to email for over 3 months, so Jordan took it over from where I left off. I was aware that CGD had reverse engineered it. I wasn't aware that you had given the tools to the people who later released the 1000 level patches. NetBSD was Chris Demetriou's child after he got fed up with Bill's promises never coming true. I was the third committer on what would later become the NetBSD development box, but I still naively assumed that Bill's promises would eventually come to fruition. All of us pretty much assumed that, at the time. 8-(. NetBSD happened when Lynn's famous email was sent out claiming we were all evil incarnate, and that no-one understood them anymore. I talked to Lynne and Bill through much of that time; it was (unfortunately) a discussion well before the fireworks that resulted in him knowing about common law trademarks. I was still on good terms with them, well after the NetBSD 0.8 release, and we mostly just lost touch, rather than letting the bickering come between us. One thing that was not commonly known at the time, though I guess most people know it now, is that they had had a financial setback, followed by a death in the family, and really weren't in any condition to be doing anything but picking up the pieces; the whole incident was really unfortunate. Actually, all of the patchkit maintainers (myself, Jordan, and Rod) had access to your shell software. However, it turned out that avoiding conflicts was hard, because serialization often required patches upon patches upon patches upon patches, and at some point, the creation/maintenance of the patchkit was greater than building a new release. (Plus the fact that you couldn't install the patches w/out a running system, and the running system couldn't be installed on certain hardware w/out patches, causing a catch-22). Yes. It was effectively a single author thing. I always used it by manually applying the patches and resolving any conflicts by hand, and then running a diff between the base tree and the target tree. I never really claimed it as anything other than a vehicle for distributing patches (it sure as heck was no CVS!). As for the binaries, we had a number of patched floppy images floating around (I personally couldn't boot the thing at all until I binary edited the floppy to look for 639 instead of 640 in the CMOS base memory data registers). Close, but the original posting was by Bill, and the revokation was done by Lynn. I remember it the other way, but would have to go to tape on it to know for sure... 8-). Originally, Lynne recommended the patchkit and FAQ -- here's an excerpt of a usenet posting of hers from 28 January 1993: | You can get a copy of 386BSD from agate.berkeley.edu (and it's mirror | sites) via anonymous ftp. It is also available on CDROM from Austin | Code Works ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [Note -- this is unpatched 0.1 -- you should | get the patchkit in /unofficial on agate, and also the FAQ]. I was involved with the entire affair, and Warren's archive doesn't include much of what later became 'core' email. Unfortunately, I cut myself out of the loop early on that, due to the impending purchase of USL by Novell, which went through in June of 1994, after off shore locations which were not Berne Convention signatories had been found to house the code in case the worst happened, so this email is not part of my personal archives. I hope someone, somewhere has saved it for posterity... Also, it doesn't include the phone conversations with Bill and Lynn, which (obviously) aren't in the public domain. Nor mine. Actually, in California, Utah, and Montanna, and now many more states, so long as one party to the conversation is the one doing the recording, you don't even have to have the periodic beep to indicate a recording... even back then. But I never even considered recording my calls, and I rather doubt that anyone else had the foresight to do it, either. It's annoying in retrospect, because I had the equipment for doing passive monitoring without violating the phone company rules on connecting equipment to their wires. 20/20 hindsight... 8-(. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Nate Williams wrote: You're not the only pack-rat around here. Be careful of your claims, since they could come back to bite you. I'm willing to be bitten in public, if I'm wrong... always have been. ;-). ps. I still have my phone-logs of my conversations with Bill as well. ;) Now I'm jealous... I have some yellow legal pads with notes on them, and two of the archives of the grand unified console driver online discussions (what a boondoggle that turned out\ to be!), but no real phone logs. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Bill Jolitz approved a 0.5 interim release of 386BSD And then Lynn revoked this, and posted a public message to the world stating what obnoxious fiends we were. Actually, Lynne didn't have the right to do this; the trademark was Bill's, so the revocation wasn't valid until Bill did it. Some of the people who later split off NetBSD and released the NetBSD 0.8 release had reverse engineered the patchkit format, and built tools to do the same thing. Actually, no. It was the person who was going to take it from me (I could name him, but it wouldn't do much good). The new maintainer didn't do anything or respond to email for over 3 months, so Jordan took it over from where I left off. I was aware that CGD had reverse engineered it. He didn't. Chris never used the patchkit, nor did he ever release any patches. He used some of the patches, but never got involved in anything but his own BSD release. I wasn't aware that you had given the tools to the people who later released the 1000 level patches. He was supposed to be the next maintainer. :( NetBSD happened when Lynn's famous email was sent out claiming we were all evil incarnate, and that no-one understood them anymore. I talked to Lynne and Bill through much of that time; it was (unfortunately) a discussion well before the fireworks that resulted in him knowing about common law trademarks. I was still on good terms with them, well after the NetBSD 0.8 release, and we mostly just lost touch, rather than letting the bickering come between us. I'm suprised you were able to talk to them. Lynn refused to talk to me (or anyone else) on the phone towards the end, and then the famous email was released. As for the binaries, we had a number of patched floppy images floating around (I personally couldn't boot the thing at all until I binary edited the floppy to look for 639 instead of 640 in the CMOS base memory data registers). Right, but they weren't good enough for a complete install. Unfortunately, I cut myself out of the loop early on that, due to the impending purchase of USL by Novell, which went through in June of 1994, after off shore locations which were not Berne Convention signatories had been found to house the code in case the worst happened, so this email is not part of my personal archives. I hope someone, somewhere has saved it for posterity... It's on 120MB QIC tapes in the drawer next to me. The 'original' 386BSD/FreeBSD development box (prior to WC's involvement) with the tape drive is still in service as my firewall. :) Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Terry Lambert writes: Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Nate, You're replying to Terry for christs sake! What did you expect if not revisionist $anything ? Which reminds me, Adrian still oves us his story about ref :-) Poul, you're going off again, without regard for facts. Terry, *I* worked at TFS, I even kept ref.tfs.com alive after Julian went AWOL. *You* have talked to people who worked at TFS. Now, remind me again why historians are so picky about primary sources and secondary sources for historical information... Are we done now ? (Apart from Adrians story of course :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: *I* worked at TFS, I even kept ref.tfs.com alive after Julian went AWOL. I'm well aware of your checkered past... 8-). I guess Julian might pipe up now about the use of the acronym AWOL... Now, remind me again why historians are so picky about primary sources and secondary sources for historical information... That would be... Dennis Ritchie? 8-) 8-). Are we done now ? I guess... (Apart from Adrians story of course :-) If you think you can beat it out of him... I think we'd all like to sit around the camp fire and listen to it, while stroking our long grey beards... -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Terry Lambert wrote: Zhihui Zhang wrote: What is the file system that uses VT_TFS in vnode.h? Is it still available on FreeBSD? Thanks. Julian added it for TRW Financial Services; the first public reference machine for 386BSD (which later became FreeBSD and NetBSD) was ref.tfs.com. TRW supported a lot of the early 386BSD/FreeBSD effort, back before Walnut Creek CDROM threw in and had us change the version number from 0.1 to 1.0 to make it a bit easier to sell. The version numbers have been bloating ever since... I think you are thinking of other stuff I did at TFS, (we had something similar) but never committed here.. this was actually done in the following commit: --- Revision 1.36 / (download) - annotate - [select for diffs], Thu Oct 17 17:12:04 1996 UTC (4 years, 10 months ago) by jkh Branch: MAIN CVS Tags: RELENG_2_2_BP Branch point for: RELENG_2_2 Changes since 1.35: +2 -2 lines Diff to previous 1.35 (colored) Some very small changes to support Netcon's TFS filesystem. These patches were formerly applied by the Netcon installer before rebuilding your kernel. -- ++ __ _ __ | __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / hard at work in | / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--x USA\ a very strange | ( OZ)\___ ___ | country ! +- X_.---._/presently in San Francisco \_/ \\ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Terry Lambert writes: Zhihui Zhang wrote: What is the file system that uses VT_TFS in vnode.h? Is it still available on FreeBSD? Thanks. Julian added it for TRW Financial Services; And "TFS" means "Truly evil File System" :-) not of my doing.. see other email (cvsweb is your friend) It should be nuked now of course. I have no idea if they (the people who added it) are still working on that filesystem. v_tag is only a debugging aid and it should be replaced by a "const char *" instead so that we don't need to modify sys/vnode.h just to add a filesystem. AMEN -- ++ __ _ __ | __--_|\ Julian Elischer | \ U \/ / hard at work in | / \ [EMAIL PROTECTED] +--x USA\ a very strange | ( OZ)\___ ___ | country ! +- X_.---._/presently in San Francisco \_/ \\ v To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Julian Elischer wrote: What is the file system that uses VT_TFS in vnode.h? Is it still available on FreeBSD? Thanks. Julian added it for TRW Financial Services; the first public reference machine for 386BSD (which later became FreeBSD and NetBSD) was ref.tfs.com. TRW supported a lot of the early 386BSD/FreeBSD effort, back before Walnut Creek CDROM threw in and had us change the version number from 0.1 to 1.0 to make it a bit easier to sell. The version numbers have been bloating ever since... I think you are thinking of other stuff I did at TFS, (we had something similar) but never committed here.. this was actually done in the following commit: Hunh. I could have sworn that that was your baby... I guess I'm just remembering a conversation about the something similar. In any case, it's useful to let a VFS layer own its vnodes... so I'd leave it there: never know when you might need it. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
What is the file system that uses VT_TFS in vnode.h? Is it still available on FreeBSD? Thanks. Julian added it for TRW Financial Services; the first public reference machine for 386BSD (which later became FreeBSD and NetBSD) was ref.tfs.com. So far so good. ref died an ugly horrible death, although I think I still have lying around a 4mm backup tape of what was left of it. TRW supported a lot of the early 386BSD/FreeBSD effort, back before Walnut Creek CDROM threw in and had us change the version number from 0.1 to 1.0 to make it a bit easier to sell. *Huh* That's revisionist history if I've ever heard it. We did a 1.0 release for FreeBSD because we wanted to differentiate ourselves from 386BSD (lot of bad blood there with the Jolitz's) and NetBSD (which had a 0.8 release at that time). Nate To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nate Williams writes: TRW supported a lot of the early 386BSD/FreeBSD effort, back before Walnut Creek CDROM threw in and had us change the version number from 0.1 to 1.0 to make it a bit easier to sell. *Huh* That's revisionist history if I've ever heard it. We did a 1.0 release for FreeBSD because we wanted to differentiate ourselves from 386BSD (lot of bad blood there with the Jolitz's) and NetBSD (which had a 0.8 release at that time). Nate, You're replying to Terry for christs sake! What did you expect if not revisionist $anything ? Which reminds me, Adrian still oves us his story about ref :-) -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
On Tue, 4 Sep 2001, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: Which reminds me, Adrian still oves us his story about ref :-) Yeah, the REAL one... To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
Zhihui Zhang wrote: What is the file system that uses VT_TFS in vnode.h? Is it still available on FreeBSD? Thanks. Julian added it for TRW Financial Services; the first public reference machine for 386BSD (which later became FreeBSD and NetBSD) was ref.tfs.com. TRW supported a lot of the early 386BSD/FreeBSD effort, back before Walnut Creek CDROM threw in and had us change the version number from 0.1 to 1.0 to make it a bit easier to sell. The version numbers have been bloating ever since... The purpose of the new vnode type was to permit the VFS to own the vnode, instead of having it owned by the OS, as a contended resource (System V based systems, including UnixWare, Solaris, etc., all give ownership of vnodes to the underlying VFS, instead of having a system wide free vnode pool, like BSD uses). You'd have to ask Julian to be sure, but it may even have been done to port TFS from a System V derived system. Julian also did the original Adaptec SCSI controller support for 386BSD/NetBSD/FreeBSD... this was back when FreeBSD was really 386BSD (authored by Bill Jolitz) + the patchkit (that I originally authored, before I foisted it off on Rod Grimes, Nate Williams, and later Jordan Hubbard, and the original Unofficial FAQ off on to Dave Burgess. Technically, having the vnodes owned by the VFS is a much better design, since it helps scaling to get away from the global list, and you can allocated the incore inode and the vnode as a single allocation unit. It also helps with the VFS stacking issues, by avoiding a stacked layer race that can happen when you are low on the vnodes, when you have two or more stacked layers. It also lets you proxy calls across the user/kernel boundary more easily, which lets you do neat things like source level debug stacking layers entirely in user space. -- Terry To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
In message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Terry Lambert writes: Zhihui Zhang wrote: What is the file system that uses VT_TFS in vnode.h? Is it still available on FreeBSD? Thanks. Julian added it for TRW Financial Services; And TFS means Truly evil File System :-) It should be nuked now of course. v_tag is only a debugging aid and it should be replaced by a const char * instead so that we don't need to modify sys/vnode.h just to add a filesystem. -- Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20 [EMAIL PROTECTED] | TCP/IP since RFC 956 FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence. To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
Re: What is VT_TFS?
On Fri, 31 Aug 2001, Zhihui Zhang wrote: What is the file system that uses VT_TFS in vnode.h? Is it still available on FreeBSD? Thanks. This type of filesystem was used by netcon package (http://www.netcon.com). However there is no new versions for FreeBSD above 2.x, so it probably can be safely removed. -- Boris Popov http://rbp.euro.ru To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
What is VT_TFS?
What is the file system that uses VT_TFS in vnode.h? Is it still available on FreeBSD? Thanks. -Zhihui To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with unsubscribe freebsd-hackers in the body of the message
