Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a lloc ation) ) | Date | Thu, 07 Oct 1999 19:19:46 -0400 | From | Horst von Brand <> |
| |
Dan Hollis <goemon@sasami.anime.net> said: > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Horst von Brand wrote: > > Reasons against devfs: > > - Permanent attributes are kludged on
> Not necessarily a bad thing. procfs and devpts have these too
Nope. procfs shows processes (much of the rest is clutter that should go away), and those have "logical" permissions: My processes belong to me. devpts has no real existence, what it gives out are ephemeral pipes.
> > - Impacts system administration, making device managing a lot less Unixy > > This is not necessarily a bad thing.
As long as you want Unix, it is.
> > - What can be done with devfs can be done without it.
> Same can be said of kerneld/kmod. It's purely a convenience factor. But > there we are, kmod is in the kernel.
OK, I do use modules/kmod heavily. Point taken. -- Dr. Horst H. von Brand mailto:vonbrand@inf.utfsm.cl Departamento de Informatica Fono: +56 32 654431 Universidad Tecnica Federico Santa Maria +56 32 654239 Casilla 110-V, Valparaiso, Chile Fax: +56 32 797513
- 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/
| |