Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 08 Oct 1999 00:26:41 +0200 | From | Martin Dalecki <> | Subject | Re: 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/
| |