Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:36:41 +0200 (CEST) From: sthaug@nethelp.no To: scottl@samsco.org Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, mav@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA Message-ID: <20110423.183641.41662287.sthaug@nethelp.no> In-Reply-To: <BCE89DC7-116D-48E1-BD86-DF986062B0CC@samsco.org> References: <20110420203754.GM85668@acme.spoerlein.net> <4DAF46F8.9040004@FreeBSD.org> <BCE89DC7-116D-48E1-BD86-DF986062B0CC@samsco.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> In other words, "ada" isn't the problem here, it's that we all still think in terms of the 1980's when systems didn't autoconfigure and device names were important hints to system functionality. That time has thankfully passed, and it's time for us to catch up. If this is important for disk type devices, why not also for network type devices? Why don't we all use ethX like Linux does? Personally I *like* knowing something about the underlying type of device and technology - but I can definitely see both sides of the argument here. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20110423.183641.41662287.sthaug>