On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 05:04:44PM -0700, Andrew Sharp wrote: > I've been typing standard unix device names for almost 20 years, and > I've gotten pretty fast and handy at it. The devfs thing is a major > annoyance to me, and so far I have been successful in ignoring it. you do know that devfs is 100% optional, 2.4 works just fine with CONFIG_FS_DEVFS=n despite popular FUD spread by some devfs apologists. also despite some unnamed powerpc kernel hackers attempts to force the thing down our throats... > But how long will that last. What I want to know is, what question > was devfs an answer to? There must have been one, right? Is it a devfs is a solution in search of a problem. > posix thing? I suppose I could research these questions myself, but > it's too hot outside. ~:^) devfs as it is will probably die, 2.6 is most likely going to do something different. -- Ethan Benson http://www.alaska.net/~erbenson/
Attachment:
pgp9iF8sCIeOL.pgp
Description: PGP signature