> Richard Gooch wrote:
> >
> > H. Peter Anvin writes:
> > > Richard Gooch wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > That's your assertion. I claim it is starting with a solution going
> > > > > looking for the problem, and finding the solution is not what the
> > > > > problem required -> kluge.
> > > >
> > > > Credit me with having thought about the issues before I started
> > > > coding. I even discussed things on the list before I started
> > > > coding. Devfs is most definately a response to a set of real problems.
> > >
> > > You did, and I agree it is a response. I don't think it is the
> > > *correct* response (as I have explained many times on this list many
> > > times both before and after you first started on this.)
> >
> > You ignored the point I'm making. You said that devfs is a solution
> > looking for a problem. That is incorrect. There are (were) several
> > problems for which I came up with a solution.
> >
> > You are entitled to have your opinion on whether devfs is the right
> > solution or not. However, it's just plain rude to insinuate that I
> > coded before thinking.
> >
>
> No, but you did go out and say "I'm going to write devfs". Then when
> encountered with the problems with the approach, you build hacks around
> the problems.
>
> The problem with devfs is that if your configuration is vanilla enough,
> it seems quite compelling. It's the Microsoft "one size fits all"
> approach.
>
I specificly use devfs because I do NOT use "vanilla" configurations.
I use devices that RedHat never heard of, and I either need to mutter
incantations over /dev to get everything working nicely or run devfs.
I have found devfs to be the superior solution for my devices.
Have you tried it for yours?
Daniel Taylor
-
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/