Re: Switch from legacy ata(4) to CAM-based ATA

On Apr 23, 2011, at 10:36 AM, sthaug_at_nethelp.no wrote:

>> 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?


I'd really like to see that as well, but there were strong disagreements when I floated the idea 4 years ago.


> Personally I *like* knowing something about the underlying type of
> device and technology - but I can definitely see both sides of the
> argument here.
> 

Indeed, there's nothing wrong with preserving access to the system details for the use of administration, troubleshooting, and even mere geeky knowledge.  This isn't about taking power away from the superusers, it's about making the system smart enough to handle common situations reliably. I'm sure that there some among us who pine for the good old days of manually configuring and linking a kernel, but it's hard to argue that an auto-configured kernel isn't pretty darn convenient most of the time.  What I'm proposing is just the next step in that process.

Scott