Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:38:45 -0600 | From | Dylan Griffiths <> | Subject | Re: Devfs implementation. |
| |
I'm not sure why people are resisting Devfs. When I first found out about it, I thought it was a great idea. There are some semantics issues (ie: cdrom, mouse, video, and other common links need some form of persistency and need to be pointing to the correct devices), but on the whole it's a good concept. Another point that I'm not sure if it has been missed, is that the average user can't just go and make a new link in the /dev tree without a proper understanding of it. Creating links for devices you have added is a huge chore. Is the average user who is currently using windows going to understand major and minor device numbers for creating a link? No. One of the main reasons I love Linux is that is it, for the most part, self-maintaining. Devfs is a continuation of this, and allows easier shims of things like dynamic devices in the future. Would you argue that procfs should also be a dir with major and minor number node links for parts of kernel information? Linux is currently a good server solution, but it won't be a good desktop solution until ideas such as devfs are implemented.
- 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/
| |