> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Yes, this behavior would be an option, and would be to make others
> > > happier about letting devfs be in the kernel..
> >
> > There are certain people who dont want options available to end users.
>
> If you would elaborate and give reasons, I might give that some
> thought. Just putting that claim out there is useless however. Do you
> feel this way? If so, why? If you speak for others, what are their
> reasons, and why are they not speaking?
>
Who isn't speaking?
90% of the objections to having devfs in the kernel
are easily solved with "well don't use it then".
The remaining objections can be or _have_been_
dealt with in a rational manner.
I personally do not use MISC binaries. I do not
use CPU's that lack FPU's. I have no FDDI or ATM
cards. I rarely use a system that has a sound card.
All of these things are in the kernel, and I wouldn't
suggest removing them just because they are "unUnixlike"
or that I personally have no use for them.
I do NOT compile options I do not need/use into my kernels.
-- Daniel Taylor Senior Test Engineer Digi International danielt@digi.com Open systems win.
- 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/