I expect people will want to log in.
You would slow down: lilo, most procps tools, svgalib apps,
telnetd, xterm, screen, emacs, and many shell scripts.
It is bad enough with 256 pty pairs, SCSI partitions, etc.
>>> Posix complient means nothing. Go and see what you actually need to
>>> make posix. It's bugger all. Certainly not a terribly useful system.
>>>
>>> pty's aren't minimal posix to start with, ditto devices!
>>
>> Yes, which is why an NTFS system requires a devfs. I guess you agree.
>
> Why stop at devices? What about unix pipes? what about hard links?
> The fact that NTFS is missing a bunch of features means NTFS has a
> problem. Why muck up the rest of the kernel because of NTFS
> limitations.
Get a clue about NTFS. It isn't missing a bunch of features.
The only thing missing is /dev support.
> As a sanity check: How many people would seriously want to
> run NTFS as root filesystem?
I see, _you_ don't need it so screw everyone else.
Answer 'N' in the kernel config and ignore us weirdos.
>>> This isn't an argument for devfs. This is an argument for a larger
>>> dev_t size. Before you can claim this as a reason for building a
>>> devfs, you need to detail exactly how a devfs is magically going to
>>> fix the above problem.
>>
>> Sanity check time! Let's see if your "fix" would work.
>>
>> bus 4 bits
>> unit 8 bits
>> LUN 8 bits
>> partition 6 bits
>> raw/cook/etc 2 bits
>>
>> Fine, /dev will be 4 to 8 GB. The linear search will be fun!
>> Seriously, a larger dev_t will _not_ fix this problem.
>
> This is truely nonsense. You don't need to create every possible
> device. Even in the current scheme, most people don't have a
> /dev/sdf* in there.
Really? Most people run RedHat AFAIK, which makes /dev/sdf*.
I have that device. Since ext2 directories do not get compacted,
there is no reason to remove the device without a full backup,
removal, and restore of /dev. That means a boot floppy.
Distributions need to include such devices so that people
won't call tech support and complain.
> You create the devices you need. It isn't terrible hard!
Now you are torturing newbies. Actually, great hackers shouldn't
have to bother with that either. It is a waste of their time.
> ptys need a better fix than a devfs kludge. They don't really
> belong in the device space anyway, more the unix pipe space.
Interesting. Propose a solution that won't violate standards.
You need to support ptsname() and ttyname(). Without a devfs,
you might need an ugly hack in /proc. Eeew.