> Hello Everyone;
>
> Let put this is really simple terms:
Why, so your self contradiction is more obvious?
> 1. Companies, clients, and I like the current naming conventions, and
> want
> to keep using the current naming conventions.
So keep them. Jeezus, ya cry baby, having devfs as an option in the
production kernel will not break/change/hurt/bloat a friggin thing. It's
an OPTION. Simply having the option there will not hurt ANYTHING.
> 2. What advantage does dev_fs offer us over the present system?
> Understand
> that we do not care about thousands & thousands of inodes in /dev, we do
> not
> care about directory searches being slow. So given that what are the
> advantages?
*YOU* are not speaking for the industry, sir... You are speaking from
irrational fears and misplaced anger.
Current system...
User -> VFS -> EXT2 -> IDE/SCSI DISK -> and back up the chain (or
something like this)
DEVFS
User -> VFS -> DEVFS -> back up the friggin chain.
How simple can I put it???? It may be slightly off, but the shortcut
argument holds.
Understand, folks, he contradicts himself at every turn, does not care
that ALL ISSUES HE PRESENTS ARE BOGUS, etc.
Remember, we only want DEVFS to be an OPTIONAL CONFIG OPTION IN THE
PRODUCTION KERNEL, not a default. Use it, or not.
That will not break ANYTHING.
-Shawn
<=========== America Held Hostage ===========>
Day 2023 for the poor and the middle class.
Day 2042 for the rich and the dead.
899 days remaining in the Raw Deal.
<============================================>
-
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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html