On Mon, May 22, 2000 at 05:37:03AM +0000, jmcmullan@linuxcare.com wrote:
>
> Network devices, the network sockets, etc. were pushed into
> a namespace that could not be inspeced from userspace without
> special tools such as ifconfig, route, netstat, etc. Call me
> SysV, but I am a firm believer in presenting the network namespace
> in the UNIX tradition.
Except sockets don't really act like files. Network sockets have
special properties that files simply shouldn't have.
Now if UNIX had been designed with the philosophy "Everything is
a socket"... I think an OS like that would be quite amazing.
> Personally, I don't care WHERE we put it - so long as it's
> ALL IN ONE PLACE. James is right - having to look 10 different places
> just to find out that ``oh yeah - I use setterm(1) to send the
> ioctl() to my VT to turn on power management when I'm in the console''
> just doesn't make sense - especially since we, the Linux community,
> have the ability with Linux 3.0 to _drop_ all of the cruft that
> has gathered in UNIX - and Linux - over the past 25 years.
Large companies with massive amounts of money have already tried
this. Tried and failed? No, tried and died.
The cruft works. The best you can hope for is cleaner cruft. The
cruft removal jihads almost always end in tears.
-
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 : Tue May 23 2000 - 21:00:21 EST