Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:34:51 -0400 (EDT) | From | Stephen Frost <> | Subject | RE: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) |
| |
On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Shawn Leas wrote:
> From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfrost@mail.snowman.net] > Subject: Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device > a lloc ation) ) > > >> arguments, or they make no sense. (BTW, I think that's microsoft's > >> problem.... they only consider the common case, not the full range of > >> possibilities.) > > > I think the problem is, a replacement/permanent fix to the way /dev > >is done currently would be nice. devfs is a step in the right direction, > >but it needs to be something that can replace what is there otherwise it > >isn't worth it to just add it on without fixing the real problem. As such, > >just saying "don't use it" isn't a good argument. > > 1) Your paragraph is invalid because devfs can > be used in a number of capacities > a) Fully replace standard /dev, and run > in total compatibility mode. (And > it has persistence with devfsd, no > more bullshit from you people) > b) Allow for automatic population of > standard /dev > c) deconfigured.
Again, the "don't use it" argument isn't valid if you're going to try and replace the system, so c is out. In b, do you populate a filesystem /dev with actual files that have major,minor's? a appears unacceptable to a number of people for a number of reasons.
Stephen
- 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/
| |