>  > Curious: why aren't they using it as a prefix instead of a suffix?  It
>  > would seem to make more sense as a prefix, for all sorts fo string
>  > manipulation reasons, including argv[ 0] and _ replacement with 0
>  > for string split issues...
>  > 
>  > Is it just that SVR4 does it with prefixes, and NIH rules?
> 
> ....there was already a (weak) precendent in BSD for suffixes... c.f.
> "newlfs".
> 
> Of course, I don't recall checking what SVR4 did, either.  It's
> not clear that it matters that much.

Really?  Which do you prefer?

The list to show by command?
% ls /sbin/fs
clri_cd9660	clri_ffs	clri_kernfs	clri_lfs
clri_mfs	clri_msdos	clri_nfs	clri_null
clri_portal	clri_procfs	clri_umap	clri_union
dump_cd9660	dump_ffs	dump_kernfs	dump_lfs
dump_mfs	dump_msdos	dump_nfs	dump_null
dump_portal	dump_procfs	dump_umap	dump_union

...


Or the list to show by fs?
% ls /sbin/fs
cd9660_clri	cd9660_dump	cd9660_fsck	cd9660_fstyp
cd9660_mount	cd9660_newfs	cd9660_restore	cd9660_umount
ffs_clri	ffs_dump	ffs_fsck	ffs_fstyp
ffs_mount	ffs_newfs	ffs_restore	ffs_umount

...


If I had my way, it'd look like:
% ls -R /sbin/fs
cd9660		ffs		kernfs		lfs
mfs		msdos		nfs		null
portal		procfs		umap		union

/sbin/fs/cd9660:
clri		dump		fsck		fstyp
mount		newfs		restore		umount

/sbin/fs/ffs:
clri		dump		fsck		fstyp
mount		newfs		restore		umount

...

If I want to add a new FS, I add /sbin/fs/$(NAME) and /lkm/$(NAME)_mod.o
and it all just works.

					Regards,
					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.