Sergey Kubushin writes:
> On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 almesber@lrc.di.epfl.ch wrote:
>> Sergey Kubushin wrote:
>>> BTW, why /dev/disCs, not /dev/disKs ? :))
>>
>> Seagate naming ? As opposed to IBM, Maxtor, Quantum, Toshiba, Fujitsu,
>> Hitachi, Samsung, NEC ("disk" or "disk drive"), and Western Digital
>> (just "drive").
Western Digital has it right. Rotating media might someday be about
as popular as core memory. ("core" = tiny wire wrapped magnetic bits)
IBM mainframe terminology is also correct. DASD is the term for a
"direct access storage device", meaning almost anything but a tape.
> And it is not such thing as "disc" anywhere in the kernel. We know
> ide-disk.o, we know /dev/dsk/ from others...
Yes, most UNIX(R) systems use /dev/dsk. This fits well with the
tradition of using 3-letter names. (dev tmp var usr etc...)
Only a GUI user could love the names we have now.
In fact, the new names remind me of what NT uses.
multi(0)disk(0)rdisk(0)partition(2)
Hmmm... the UnixWare names are much better.
> I do know that it's colour which is right, not color. And I do know that
> it's disc which is in English, not disk. But it could be confusing to
> remember that it's disc in devfs and disk everywhere else... No matter which
> one is wrong, it has to be consistent...
Well, both are wrong. "disc" is merely worse than "disk".
I used to really want devfs in the kernel. The names were usable and my
system wouldn't need to depend on extra daemons.
I suppose devfs can still be used like /devices on Solaris.
This is far less useful. Here I am, an early devfs supporter,
and I really don't want to use the result.
-
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 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:29 EST