Shawn if you are going to quote me please be more accurate next time.
Shawn Leas wrote:
>
> On Sun, 9 Aug 1998, Terry L Ridder wrote:
>
> > Hello Everyone;
> >
<snip of misquote by Shawn>
> > The second part is:
> >
> > "If you have a static /dev on a normal filesystem, you have to have
> > all 8 million possible SCSI devices. With devfs, you don't."
> >
> > Which is the part that I am asking Albert to explain. I explictly
> > asked him to explain the use of
> >
> > "you have to have all 8 million possible SCSI devices."
> >
> > I would maintain that I do not have to have any more SCSI devices
> > than I require/want/need, and that I do have the ability to manage
> > those devices myself. Therefore Albert's statement is false.
>
> You're saying then that we should not have a way for a distribution to
> setup a /dev that will scale effectively for a PC, or for a rack mounted
> SCSI giant automagically as DevFS would as long as you take care of SCSI
> Adaptor probing order?
I said nothing of that sort, I suggest you re-read my original message.
I am saying that Albert's statement:
<Begin Quote>
"If you have a static /dev on a normal filesystem, you have to have
all 8 million possible SCSI devices. With devfs, you don't."
<End Quote>
is false. Nothing more nothing less.
I gave factual details as to why that statement is false.
>
> That's what it sounded like you said. A distribution wanting to support
> large setups would force a user to mknod/rm devices himself, and FORCING
> him to do that would be less flexible than simply ALOWING him to, and
> having it setup itself AUTOMATICALLY.
I said nothing about either dev_fs, any distributions, or anyone forcing
anyone to do anything. My original question concerned Albert's
statement,
which I quote again below:
<Begin Quote>
Think about it for two seconds. The devfs generates devices as needed.
If you have a static /dev on a normal filesystem, you have to have
all 8 million possible SCSI devices. With devfs, you don't.
<End Quote>
I have asked Albert to explain that statement. I have explictly
asked him to explain the second part of the statement.
>
> Seriously, I don't know why you complain. None of you points have been
> based in fact, or even broken logic. Full of denial, and ignorance.
The message to which you have reacted has neither explict or implied
complaints. I suggest that you re-read it.
My points are backed by factm which I presented in detail.
If you believe that anything in my original
message, to which you have reacted, is not based in fact please
feel free to point out exactly what that is.
Your personal attacks do not make anything you say true.
>
> -Shawn
-- Terry L. Ridder Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software) "We do not write software, we compose it."When the toast is burnt and all the milk has turned and Captain Crunch is waving farewell when the Big One finds you may this song remind you that they don't serve breakfast in hell ==Breakfast==Newsboys
- 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