lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRE: [linux-usb] Re: USB device allocation


On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, Khimenko Victor wrote:

> AV> Learn. This place is not exactly UNIX 101, you know...
>
> Yes. I know. I know even more: Linux is NOT Unix.

Yes, it is. Sorry to break it upon you, but..

> Why we should borrow each
> and every idea from Unix without even thinking is beyond me.

Well, if you refuse to think it's your business. I can't help here.

> I'm not use Unix, I use Linux.

I don't eat meat, I eat beef...

> AV> devfs may be good/bad/whatever, but _why_ _the_ _green_ _bloody_
> AV> _fsck_ is it discussed on l-k by people who apparently never cared to look
> AV> at the code it should interact with?
>
> Just since system created only by kernel hackers without interaction with
> non-kernel hackers will be usable ONLY for kernel hackers. BTW I seen that
> code. It's little non-standard usage of VFS but it's real life, not academic
> research.

One more time. Slowly. Take. Care. To. Look. At. The. Code. That. Is.
Supposed. To. Work. With. Devfs. Look. At. The. VFS. Code.
Sheesh...

> AV> It's not a democracy and vox co^H^Hpopuli doesn't work here (or anywhere
> AV> else, for that matter).
>
> It worked with gcc :-) Yes, here problem is not enough to solve it such
> painfull way, but who knows...

I hate to piss on your parade, but _that_ will definitely take some
reading of the source. It's kinda hard to fork the code without learning
it... Oh, wait. I see. _That_ part of the work you are leaving to Richard
humbly limiting your participation with the PR stuff. Sorry, but you are
doing it poorly.

> BTW since most arguments against devfs was NOT
> technical ones (even from Linus !!!) I can not understood how reading of
> kernel sources will help here...

Though luck, then. What you are telling boils down to: "I want it; I don't
give a damn for the problems; code around and I can't be even bothered to
figure out what those problems _are_." Do you really expect to be taken
seriously?

> AV> It is a prerequisite.
>
> It's prerequisite ONLY when something is rejected purely on techincal basis.
> This is not a case with devfs.

No, sir. You will have to deal with the technical reasons. "Purely" has
nothing to this sad fact. BTW, may I also remind you that l-k is a
_technical_ list?

Look, I have no vendetta against devfs. I respect Richard. I _have_
technical problems with devfs as it is implemented. And I have no respect
to the screaming advocates. FWIC they may go and play with themselves, NT
or something equally icky. If I'll get a taste for political bullshit,
well, I know where to find SplashSnort. Could we _PLEASE_ stop this
idiocy? If you want to figure out WTF causes problems with devfs - you are
welcome. And that will take some RTFS. Or you can scream and act as a brat
expecting people to do the things they do not want just because _you_ want
it. In that case... well, see above.



-
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    [from the cache]
©2003-2011 Jasper Spaans. Advertise on this site