On Wed, 23 Feb 2000, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2000 16:11:21 +1100
> From: Richard Gooch <rgooch@atnf.csiro.au>
>
> I'd advocate we move from a "tough, use procfs" attitude to a "tough,
> use devfs" attitude. If you don't want to have devfs in your kernel,
> you wouldn't want procfs either (if being consistent). After all,
> devfs doesn't *have* to be mounted over /dev.
>
> You know, it wasn't that long ago that you said that using devfs should
> be a choice, and not something that would ever be forced. Now you're
> saying "tough, use devfs". I guess your earlier statements were just
> made to pursuade people to accept it into the kernel, and now you're
> changing your mind?
Theodore, with all due respect, I think you are being a bit tough on
Richard. It is inevitable that initial acceptance of an idea requires some
smooth talking and convincing whilst when the idea is accepted one could
go on and gently push humans towards doing the right thing as a norm as
opposed to as "optional". There is
nothing wrong about that. Richard pushed me a bit towards converting
microcode to devfs and my only resistance (as I found out) was due to
ignorance - when that is overcome I am only grateful to him that he cared
enough to convince me.
Regards,
Tigran.
-
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/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Feb 23 2000 - 21:00:34 EST