True. I do think however that devfs provides a mechanism that is
useful for a significant number of people. People with different
requirements can leave it disabled as per the default.
> > Good grief, you're like totally against it in any form, aren't you?
>
> I speak only for me - but the thing I hold the most against devfs is
> the number of fanatical message I've seen pointing out how wonderful
> it is ignoring any and all rebuttal or criticisms.
I hope you don't include me in that. I have tried to explain why I
think have an (optional) devfs is a good idea, and I have certainly
listened to other people's views and changed things where I came to
agree with their point of view.
> devfs is/has become a religious issue much the same and GGI/KGI. Can
> you please let this die or take it elsewhere? I'm even offering to
> start a list if it will help (devfs-rules-the-world@lists.f00f.org if
> anybody wants it).
I wouldn't want such a list. It doesn't reflect my aspirations (I
don't want to "rule the world"). I just think devfs nicely fills a
niche.
I will also take this opportunity to *once again* ask people to keep
the debate limited to technical issues and not to flame, throw mud or
generally behave in an annoying way. Also, if someone doesn't agree
with your point of view, sign off with a "well, that's your view, but
I don't agree", rather than going over the arguments again and again
in a vicious circle.
Regards,
Richard....
-
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