On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Terry L Ridder wrote:
> Shawn Leas wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 5 Aug 1998, Terry L Ridder wrote:
> >
> > > Hello Everyone;
> > >
> > > Let put this is really simple terms:
> >
> > Why, so your self contradiction is more obvious?
>
> 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
>
-
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