In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Narvi 

>> I think that is needlessly complicated.
>It's a direct extension to the present tty naming scheme.

That doesn't automatically imply that it is a good idea :-)

>> I think tty%05d would solve all but the third of your objections,
>The first was more a question of radix, implying that 10 might be too low. 

You know, then make it tty%012d and pretty much everybody on this
planet should be happy, right ?

>IMHO base-32 has many good qualities to itself. It makes retaining the
>policy of creating ptys in increments of 32 easy, the name space does not
>grow as fast (ptyxxxx allows for more ptys than pty%06d) and it is not
>much different from the naming system.

There is no "policy of creating ptys in increments of 32" that I know of.

/dev/MAKEDEV does it that way, but it is neither a policy nor desirable
in my mind.  I would far rather have it like tun, bpf and other sane

        sh MAKEDEV pty200       # Make me 200 ptys.

>> and quite frankly the "we've never done that before" argument
>> works badly with me.
>It's more the argument of "why do it *significantly* differently from

Run that by me again: what is it ptys are called under Solaris,
HPUX, AIX, generic SVR4 etc etc ?

I think your suggestion belongs in the Obfuscated Sysadm Contest,
not in FreeBSD.  I'm also pretty convinced based on your past 
performances that you intend to argue this point until cows
evolve into birds, so expect no more emails from me on this

Poul-Henning Kamp             FreeBSD coreteam member
[EMAIL PROTECTED]               "Real hackers run -current on their laptop."
FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far!

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to