>> I think we have two, remote and local.
> i think "remove vs local" is too aggressive simplification.

I agree.

Consider a disk image in a file on an NFS filesystem, which is backing
a vnd, a partition of which is mounted as an FFS filesystem.

Is that remote, or is it local?  In one sense it is clearly remote (the
actual data storage is not on the local system), but the current
implementation will show it as local.

In this particular case, for the purposes at hand, I suspect it should
probably count as local.  I cite it merely to indicate that
remote-vs-local is not as clear-cut as it sounds at first.

In particular, I believe this is much more an attribute of the
filesystem type (ffs, nfs, etc) than it is an attribute of whether the
storage backing the filesystme is local; just because the two correlate
perfectly for the most common uses of all filesystems we currently
support is not a good reason for conflating the two concepts.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B