RE: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device a

Stephen Frost (sfrost@ns.snowman.net)
Fri, 8 Oct 1999 22:34:51 -0400 (EDT)


On Fri, 8 Oct 1999, Shawn Leas wrote:

> From: Stephen Frost [mailto:sfrost@mail.snowman.net]
> Subject: Re: PUBLIC CHALLENGE: (was RE: devfs again, (was RE: USB device
> a lloc ation) )
>
> >> arguments, or they make no sense. (BTW, I think that's microsoft's
> >> problem.... they only consider the common case, not the full range of
> >> possibilities.)
>
> > I think the problem is, a replacement/permanent fix to the way /dev
> >is done currently would be nice. devfs is a step in the right direction,
> >but it needs to be something that can replace what is there otherwise it
> >isn't worth it to just add it on without fixing the real problem. As such,
> >just saying "don't use it" isn't a good argument.
>
> 1) Your paragraph is invalid because devfs can
> be used in a number of capacities
> a) Fully replace standard /dev, and run
> in total compatibility mode. (And
> it has persistence with devfsd, no
> more bullshit from you people)
> b) Allow for automatic population of
> standard /dev
> c) deconfigured.

Again, the "don't use it" argument isn't valid if you're going to
try and replace the system, so c is out.
In b, do you populate a filesystem /dev with actual files that have
major,minor's?
a appears unacceptable to a number of people for a number of reasons.

Stephen

-
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/