Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2000 07:53:51 +0900 From: Motomichi Matsuzaki <mzaki@e-mail.ne.jp> To: wkb@freebie.demon.nl Cc: current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: "make release" breakage - dokern.sh patch 2 Message-ID: <86y9zd7sw0.wl@tkc.att.ne.jp> In-Reply-To: In your message of "Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:28:41 %2B0200" <20001025002841.A2457@freebie.demon.nl> References: <20001024143644.A52958@bsdwins.com> <20001024121509.I17729@dragon.nuxi.com> <86zojudnr5.wl@tkc.att.ne.jp> <20001025002841.A2457@freebie.demon.nl>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At Wed, 25 Oct 2000 00:28:41 +0200, Wilko Bulte <wkb@freebie.demon.nl> wrote: > > > IMO NFS needs to stay. It is *very* useful to many (including me). > > I vote for 'remove NFS away'. > > Yes, there are many people using NFS install, but it is site-specific. > The same argument goes for IPV6. In other words: it all depends on your > viewpoint. Again. NFS is site-specific service. IPv6 is world-wide service. Indeed, world-wide NFS is capable, but is somewhat ridiculous idea. And more, IPv6 is network layer feature, and NFS is session and higher layer feature like FTP, HTTP, AFS and so on. If IPv6 is disabled in IPv6-only environment, any of FTP, HTTP, NFS does not work. Disabling NFS causes minor impact compared with that, because switching to FTP is very easy, as already pointed out. NFS is for convenience, IPv6 is for life. The same argument goes for device drivers. Device drivers of storage devices are also for their lives. -- Motomichi Matsuzaki <mzaki@e-mail.ne.jp> Dept. of Biological Sciences, Grad. School of Science, Univ. of Tokyo, Japan To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?86y9zd7sw0.wl>