mike wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry for the length of this reply, I was bored and felt like writing
a novel.
Thats quite alright, I need to have things spelled out to me.
And your explanation helped me understand quite abit more of whats going
on.
Well, no you don't *need* to have devfs, and it would be really easy
to remove,
but I wouldn't recommend it, for a couple reasons. First of all,
devfs really
is the best way to do what's being done (see below), and secondly (and
more
importantly) I don't subscribe to the engineering maxim, "If it's not
broken,
fix it."
I agree with you on that, theres much more to it than I thought, and
from your explanation way out of my league. Sounds like it could get
complicated. My system runs well for me I would hate to 'jinks'
that :-)
And because enough people do dislike the new naming scheme, it
can be changed in /etc/devfsd.conf (if you can figure out how - my
very brief
glance at it looked complicated). While the new names are longer,
they also
give more information with less ambiguity than the old names. And
IIRC devfs
by default does make symlinks to to all the old names.
I was used to the /dev/hda naming scheme and understood it, is why the
new naming kinda through me when I used the "df" command.
But your explanation of how it works makes sense to me, and I believe I
can used to it.
Well, that's my novel for today. Hope you enjoy,
Conway S. Smith
I appreciate your responce thanks, Conway
--
Mike
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-newbie" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.linux-learn.org/faqs
