lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)
danielt@digi.com wrote:
>
> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Dan Hollis wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > > Yes, this behavior would be an option, and would be to make others
> > > > happier about letting devfs be in the kernel..
> > >
> > > There are certain people who dont want options available to end users.
> >
> > If you would elaborate and give reasons, I might give that some
> > thought. Just putting that claim out there is useless however. Do you
> > feel this way? If so, why? If you speak for others, what are their
> > reasons, and why are they not speaking?
> >
> Who isn't speaking?
>
> 90% of the objections to having devfs in the kernel
> are easily solved with "well don't use it then".
> The remaining objections can be or _have_been_
> dealt with in a rational manner.
>

It was a long long time I wasn't forced to use /proc
but now I'm by merits of many essential system utilities
relying on this BAD design.

--Marcin

-
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:0.034 / U:0.208 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site