Re: devfs again, (was RE: USB device allocation)
Martin Dalecki (dalecki@cs.net.pl)
Fri, 08 Oct 1999 00:26:41 +0200
danielt@digi.com wrote:
>
> 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.
>
It was a long long time I wasn't forced to use /proc
but now I'm by merits of many essential system utilities
relying on this BAD design.
--Marcin
-
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/