Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!nigel.msen.com!math.fu-berlin.de!news.th-darmstadt.de!zib-berlin.de!netmbx.de!Germany.EU.net!news From: bs@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Subject: Re: Coexisting on the PC Date: 2 Mar 1994 11:08:12 +0100 Organization: EUnet Deutschland GmbH, Dortmund, Germany Lines: 17 Distribution: world Message-ID: <2l1oic$m5d@Germany.EU.net> References: <CLz6un.A9G@rex.uokhsc.edu> <CLzu0M.J9s@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: qwerty.germany.eu.net In article <CLzu0M.J9s@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes: |> In article <CLz6un.A9G@rex.uokhsc.edu> benjamin-goldsteen@uokhsc.edu writes: |> > I have a proposition: I think the devices for 386BSD should renamed |> >to better conform to the PC. |> |> I disagree. To many of us, consistency with MSDOS is worthless. It's |> consistency with the rest of BSD that matters. I second the latter. There's *no* DOS on my machine *at all*. By the way. If you find that you want your disks be called something else, why don't you simply rename the appropriate device, or link it to another name. I'm pretty sure the system wouldn't mind you mounting /bin/sync if it's a block special... :) Bernard