On Thu, Oct 07, 1999 at 04:48:15PM -0400, Charles K Hardin wrote:> > Ah, the devfs Holy War - before people get to heavily involved in what> UNIX should be, because DAMN IT, I KNOW WHAT UNIX SHOULD BE AND I AM> ALWAYS RIGHT rhetoric ... you might consider that other OSes, like IRIX,> have done similar things with their hardware fs (not the same setup as> devfs, but similar in concept to create a tree that just has the devices> that are currently on the system)Sure, but just because some other UNIX did it, doesn't mean it was a goodidea. The argument should be argued on its own merits.> this argument is pathetic... a philosophical holy war from a bunch of> voices with strict opnions defining their arguments and not presenting> a clear logical argument for why this is such a horrid design to> introduce in the kernel...The devil's advocate's position is that the people who want devfs haven'tdone a good job of explaining why devfs *isn't* a horrid design. Though Ihonestly don't know how it could be argued any better.One interesting thing is to stand back and try and work out what model ofmanagement we're seeing here. If the people in power listened to the poorhuddled masses and gave us what we asked for, we'd have a republic. If weinstead had a system where the people in power said "we know what is bestso it'll take a revolution to change our minds", we'd have a theocracy.The real answer obviously lies somewhere in between, and varies over eachargument, but I'm definitely seeing some "High Priest" behaviour wheneverthe argument over devfs flares up.-- Nathan Hand - Chirp Web Design - http://www.chirp.com.au/ - $e^{i\pi}+1 = 0$Phone: +61 2 6230 1871   Fax: +61 2 6230 1515   E-mail: nathanh@chirp.com.au-To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" inthe body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.eduPlease read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/