In all honesty, I tend to agree with you, but I also know there are
cases where there may be legitimate reasons for having alternative
naming schemes. I perhaps went a little overboard (or was perhaps
being a bit fecetious, you decide ;->) suggesting complete
configurability, but having options for Slowlaris compatibility and
the likes could be useful. Perhaps, once the underlying architecture
stabilizes, a small set of well-defined options (and those not
mutually exclusive of each other) is a workable compromise. As long
as the existing architecture allows a device to have more than one
name, this is easily doable. This could allow, f.e., the choice of
whether to use the suggested /dev/disk /dev/tape etc subdirectories or
just have everything in a flat /dev, and other such "taste" (read:
formerly pure "policy") decisions.
Again, just rambling...
Adam
-- Things look so bad everywhere Adam D. Bradley artdodge@cs.bu.edu In this whole world what is fair Boston University Computer Science We walk blind and we try to see Ph.D. student and Linux hacker Falling behind in what could be ----> Bring me a Higher Love ----> <><