In <E12TvM4-0005GI-00@the-village.bc.nu> Alan Cox (alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk) wrote:
>> > > Sorry, Alan. It WAS there. And was removed by LINUS's request. So...
>> > Ok so Linus was wrong.
>> Hmm.
AC> Oh dear I forgot. For the benefit of some US citizens please insert
AC> <humor> and </humor> tags as appropriate.
:-)))
>> I personally greatly appreciate having a much less cluttered /dev -and- a
>> clean heirarchy of devices. The -only- reason I have devfsd running is for
>> X. Everything else uses the cleanly styled approach.
AC> It is an interesting question. Its not very unix and that breaks many things
AC> that 'know' about Unix but it is a lot neater.
It was the point behind changes AFAIK.
>> I consider devfsd backwards compatibility, and done in userspace so it's
>> very easy to change policy.
AC> Which is exactly where it should be.
Why ? Why to introduce additional level of indirection and such if you can not
introduce new policy anyway (it's defined in "Linux Allocated Devices"
document as you said earlier :-)
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Mar 11 2000 - 23:05:24 EST