From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Thu Nov 27 08:57:01 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 33C8B16A4CE
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:57:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dyson.jdyson.com (dsl-static-206-246-160-137.iquest.net
	[206.246.160.137])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED85B43FDF
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 08:56:59 -0800 (PST)
	(envelope-from toor@dyson.jdyson.com)
Received: from dyson.jdyson.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by dyson.jdyson.com (8.12.8/8.9.3) with ESMTP id hARGuxXQ022556
	for <current@freebsd.org>; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:56:59 -0500 (EST)
	(envelope-from toor@dyson.jdyson.com)
Received: (from toor@localhost)
	by dyson.jdyson.com (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id hARGuwXp022555
	for current@freebsd.org; Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:56:58 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200311271656.hARGuwXp022555@dyson.jdyson.com>
To: current@freebsd.org
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:56:58 -0500 (EST)
From: dyson@iquest.net
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
cc: dyson@iquest.net
Subject: Bitrot -- loss of LFS
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
Reply-To: dyson@iquest.net
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 16:57:01 -0000

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