lkml.org 
[lkml]   [1999]   [Oct]   [7]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
From
Date
SubjectRe: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)
On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Yes, this behavior would be an option, and would be to make others
> > > happier about letting devfs be in the kernel..
> >
> > There are certain people who dont want options available to end users.
>
> If you would elaborate and give reasons, I might give that some
> thought. Just putting that claim out there is useless however. Do you
> feel this way? If so, why? If you speak for others, what are their
> reasons, and why are they not speaking?
>
Who isn't speaking?

90% of the objections to having devfs in the kernel
are easily solved with "well don't use it then".
The remaining objections can be or _have_been_
dealt with in a rational manner.

I personally do not use MISC binaries. I do not
use CPU's that lack FPU's. I have no FDDI or ATM
cards. I rarely use a system that has a sound card.

All of these things are in the kernel, and I wouldn't
suggest removing them just because they are "unUnixlike"
or that I personally have no use for them.
I do NOT compile options I do not need/use into my kernels.

--
Daniel Taylor Senior Test Engineer Digi International
danielt@digi.com Open systems win.


-
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    [W:0.079 / U:0.732 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site