OT: Devfs, was: Re: Bug#62699: cdparanoia [...]
20.04.2000 pisze Lawrence Walton (lawrence@the-penguin.otak.com):
> > 2) Linux 2.4 is just around the corner. It contains Richard
> > Gooch's "devfs" which I think makes the whole issue of "/dev" go
> > away. I haven't played with it yet to be sure how it works though.
> I doubt that woody will use this feature. 2.3.x works fine
I hope it will. It would be very nice to see full devfsd with
acceptable configuration shipped with woody.
> with out it, it's very un-unix, almost god forbid NT like.
> The idea behind it is valid, just odd to me.
Well, devfs should not be used just because you think it's odd or
NT-like (in what way NT-like, I can't understand)?
> Does anyone have an idea if devfs is one of the woody release goals?
> It's pretty groovy concept, just a departure, from old school Unix
Linux itself is a great departure from old school Unix -- it isn't even
UNIX. And what kind of Unix you mean? Unix V3, BSD Unix (what version
of BSD?), SysV Unix? My $DEITY, there's so much Unixes around...
> and will break lots and lots of things.
I'm using devfs now, for a very long time, on a potato machine(s) with
2.2.x kernel series. It breaks only badly written tools with hardcoded
device paths and names (e.g. those, who think that the only way to name
virtual console is /dev/tty*, as XF3.3.*, which need a link from
/dev/vc/<number> to /dev/tty7 for use with startx -- vt7)...
regards,
Jubal
--
[ Miros/law L Baran, baran-at-knm-org-pl, neg IQ, cert AI ] [ 0101010 is ]
[ BOF2510053411, makabra.knm.org.pl/~baran/, alchemy pany ] [ The Answer ]
Lie: a poor substitute for the truth, but the only one discovered
to date.
Reply to: