> On Wed, Oct 06, 1999 at 07:13:53AM -0500, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> >
> > [Nathan Hand <nathanh@chirp.com.au>]
> > > Agreed. Getting rid of devfs (the dynamic filesystem) makes devfs
> > > (the concept of dynamic /dev) more acceptable to more punters, and
> > > honestly doesn't lose all that much functionality.
> >
> > Que sera sera. I like devfs (the concept of dynamic /dev) but enough
> > important people don't that this may be the best that can be hoped for.
>
> A compromise is always better than a stalemate.
>
Right, having devfs present and NOT THE DEFAULT is a compromise.
I would prefer to see devfs in the kernel as the primary
method for device management. Anything less than that is
giving ground. It exists, it works, it is nicer than the
other proposed solutions (IMO), and it is not mandatory.
It would seem that the only reason to keep it out of the
kernel would be to keep it from becoming standard.
-- Daniel Taylor Senior Test Engineer Digi International danielt@digi.com Open systems win.
- 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/