[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)
>>>>> "Dan" == Dan Hollis <> writes:

Dan> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999 wrote:
>> 90% of the objections to having devfs in the kernel are easily
>> solved with "well don't use it then".

Dan> Yup its "i dont want to use it, so i dont want *you* to use it
Dan> either". Now what if this were applied to other optional kernel
Dan> options like ipv6, isdn, serial, etc...

Reading all your extremely well documented arguments on this subject
is hilarious. Have you considered that there are techincal and design
issues with devfs that people are complaining over?

I don't know how much actually changed in devfs since Ted wrote an
excellent summary about what was wrong with it about a year ago, but I
haven't seen anything from the devfs author claiming that he actually
addressed those issues.


To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.082 / U:2.216 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site