[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [9]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    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.

    > 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

    > 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
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:2.129 / U:0.196 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site