On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 02:57, David A. Bandel wrote: > If you have something better (than devfs), I know lots of folks who > would like to hear your idea of how to do it.
We have no argument about the 'goodness' of devfs. devfs is going to happen, because it has to. I have run devfs (past tense) I agreed with it, it did not agree with me. I admire your ability to use it. Richard Gooch has a *lot* of documentation to catch up on because 80% of what is there is a 1998 argument as to why devfs is needed (in preference to other alternatives). It is scant, to non-existent, on HOW to use it. > so you need to tell whoever owns the sr_mod module that he's got to rename > is scd_mod because he's wrong -- no? This is facetious. The point being that the ramifications of implementing scdX in preference to srX were not thought out fully. Redhat is not alone, unique or the leader of this new wrinkle. And, I'd fight anyone who said the kernel must change because of *any* distro. _because_ sr_mod is hardwired, _because_ many automounters hunt srX, this new approach may die a death and everyone will revert to srX. Right now, there is confusion everywhere about the duality of scdX /srX and there's no magic-cure. I don't argue the author must change, I point out the reasons why thingz iz as they iz. My view is that the dynamic assignment of devfs will rule the day and things will revert. > I've been using devfs since it came out. I prefer it. It may not be > perfect, but it's a damn site better than creating thousands of useless > device nodes No contest. -- http://linux.nf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ Linux-users mailing list Archives, Digests, etc at http://linux.nf/mailman/listinfo/linux-users
