Messages in this thread | | | From | danielt@digi ... | Date | Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:49:22 -0500 (CDT) | Subject | Re: 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/
| |