Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 8 Oct 1999 20:03:53 -0500 (CDT) | From | "Edward S. Marshall" <> | Subject | the devfs debate |
| |
Hello,
A quick request from -everyone- involved in this discussion: if you haven't actually downloaded, built, installed, and worked with the current devfs implementation, you really have no idea what you're disparaging, and you're going on the word of several present users and many non-users.
Take half an hour of your time away from this insane debate, download the devfs patches, and give them a try on a non-production machine. See what is actually involved. Poke through the code a bit. Get a feel for what you're arguing wholesale for or against.
IN OTHER WORDS: If at all possible, -everyone- resist posting on this topic for at least 24 hours, and take all the time you'd otherwise be bitching about how "devfs does this" or "devfs doesn't do that" for constructive examination of Richard's work. If someone posts an inflammatory post, IGNORE IT. 24 hours. It's not much to ask. I'll be honoring it, I hope you all do as well.
The patch is available at:
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/kernel-patches.html
If you're already familiar with it, GREAT. Take the next 24 hours of your time to collect a series of coherent, rational arguments regarding why the kernel proper should contain devfs, with attention to the arguments against it that you've already seen (go back the the kernel archives and re-read some of them, if you have to).
Ye ghods, we've become a list full of petty children squabbling over our OS de jour.
-- Edward S. Marshall <emarshal@logic.net> [ What goes up, must come down. ] http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ [ Ask any system administrator. ]
- 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/
| |