lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [6]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Subject[OT] RE: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation
Date
How about option three where we accept the problem, but when any solution is
given, stubbornly deny that it solves any problem without even trying it?

Oh, in case some of you don't get it, I'm making fun of you... You know who
you are! Hehehehe...

-Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: David Weinehall [mailto:tao@acc.umu.se]
To: Linux Kernel Developer Mailing-list
Subject: RE: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation


My opinion on devfs is, that as a lot of people refuse to accept it as the
solution, we have two options.

Either the people that oppose devfs come up with something better ("Show
us the code!")

or

We ignore this problem completely and continue with static devices and a
growingly insane device-system.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.318 / U:0.344 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site