Re: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)

danielt@digi.com
Thu, 7 Oct 1999 14:49:22 -0500 (CDT)


On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Dan Hollis wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 7 Oct 1999, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Yes, this behavior would be an option, and would be to make others
> > > happier about letting devfs be in the kernel..
> >
> > There are certain people who dont want options available to end users.
>
> If you would elaborate and give reasons, I might give that some
> thought. Just putting that claim out there is useless however. Do you
> feel this way? If so, why? If you speak for others, what are their
> reasons, and why are they not speaking?
>
Who isn't speaking?

90% of the objections to having devfs in the kernel
are easily solved with "well don't use it then".
The remaining objections can be or _have_been_
dealt with in a rational manner.

I personally do not use MISC binaries. I do not
use CPU's that lack FPU's. I have no FDDI or ATM
cards. I rarely use a system that has a sound card.

All of these things are in the kernel, and I wouldn't
suggest removing them just because they are "unUnixlike"
or that I personally have no use for them.
I do NOT compile options I do not need/use into my kernels.

-- 
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/