> I've seen a few "nothing is broken" posts. Things _are_ broken.
> Leaving aside the issue of a bloated /dev full of junk I don't
> have, there are some serious reasons for a devfs. It needs to
> be a real devfs too, not some weak hack.
>
> *** Read-only filesystems ***
[...]
> *** NTFS ***
[...]
> *** PTY security ***
[...]
May I quickly mention that, since backwards compatibility is already a goal,
nothing prevents chroot-jailers from using the old /dev files in their
jails. One can have a fancy dynamic /devfs mounted on /dev, and an
old-fashioned set of device files in /gaol/dev.
This doesn't address the "8-bit minor device number" limitations, but
I think jailers can live with that, and allow the rest of us to
benefit from the new /devfs.
OTOH, from the discussion I've seen here, it looks like we'll be able
to come up with a set of mount options that will make us all happy,
chroot-jailers and the rest.
--Scott / "I *like* virtual filesystems"
@ @
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-oOO-(_)-OOo-=-=-=-=-=
C. Scott Ananian: cananian@lcs.mit.edu / Declare the Truth boldly and
Laboratory for Computer Science/Crypto / without hindrance.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology /META-PARRESIAS AKOLUTOS:Acts 28:31
-.-. .-.. .. ..-. ..-. --- .-. -.. ... -.-. --- - - .- -. .- -. .. .- -.
PGP key available via finger and from http://www.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/~cananian