I am not sure to whom you are referring to here since I have not
contradicted myself.
>
> > 1. Companies, clients, and I like the current naming conventions, and
> > want
> > to keep using the current naming conventions.
>
> So keep them. Jeezus, ya cry baby, having devfs as an option in the
> production kernel will not break/change/hurt/bloat a friggin thing. It's
> an OPTION. Simply having the option there will not hurt ANYTHING.
I am not sure to whom you are referring here.
I have never stated in any posting that dev_fs would
break/change/hurt/bloat
anything therefore you surely are not referring to me.
I have never stated in any posting that dev_fs should or should not be
an OPTION, so again you surely are not referring to me.
>
> > 2. What advantage does dev_fs offer us over the present system?
> > Understand
> > that we do not care about thousands & thousands of inodes in /dev, we do
> > not
> > care about directory searches being slow. So given that what are the
> > advantages?
>
> *YOU* are not speaking for the industry, sir... You are speaking from
> irrational fears and misplaced anger.
It is not entirely clear that you are referring to me here since I have
never posted anything in the way of "irrational fears and misplaced
anger"
Therefore, I will answer the part where it appears that you are
referring
to me, and let whoever the other individual may be answer the other
part.
But I am. I am speaking for companies and clients that I have been
consulting to
for many years. Companies which are currently being "courted" toward
Linux.
>
> Current system...
>
> User -> VFS -> EXT2 -> IDE/SCSI DISK -> and back up the chain (or
> something like this)
>
> DEVFS
>
> User -> VFS -> DEVFS -> back up the friggin chain.
>
> How simple can I put it???? It may be slightly off, but the shortcut
> argument holds.
Again I ask.
2. What advantage does dev_fs offer us over the present system?
Understand that we do not care about thousands & thousands of
inodes in /dev, we do not care about directory searches being
slow. So given that, what are the advantages? I would prefer a
technical
explanation.
>
> Understand, folks, he contradicts himself at every turn, does not care
> that ALL ISSUES HE PRESENTS ARE BOGUS, etc.
Again I am not sure to whom you are referring to here. I have not
contradicted
myself and the issues I have presented are valid. I have no idea to whom
you are referring.
>
> Remember, we only want DEVFS to be an OPTIONAL CONFIG OPTION IN THE
> PRODUCTION KERNEL, not a default. Use it, or not.
>
> That will not break ANYTHING.
Again I am not sure to whom you are referring here. I have never posted
anything concerning whether dev_fs should or should not be an option.
As stated perviously I have never posted anything concerning whether
dev_fs
would or would not break anything. To whom you are referring I have no
idea.
>
> -Shawn
-- Terry L. Ridder Blue Danube Software (Blaue Donau Software) "We do not write software, we compose it."When the toast is burnt and all the milk has turned and Captain Crunch is waving farewell when the Big One finds you may this song remind you that they don't serve breakfast in hell ==Breakfast==Newsboys
- 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.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html