Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 9 Oct 1999 06:19:27 -0400 (EDT) | From | Alexander Viro <> | Subject | RE: [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/
| |