> Companies want/desire/demand/need simple answers and dev_fs is not a
> simple
> answer. They read the FAQ and run screaming away because of the naming
> scheme.
Then most likely dev_fs needs to be massaged, I feel that there might be a need for
some "add-on" programs, as is the case with e2fs etc. (I will be looking into these
things shortly), which then would handle this in a seamless fashion.
> It is clear that dev_fs will not be in Linux 2.2. Companies are willing
> to
> work with a "standard" (whatever that is) Linux kernel. They do not want
> add
> on patches.
I'd like to see a "Standard" kernel... And I *DO* feel that a dev_fs (Something
that I prefer to to the current cluttered /dev of most distributions) would help to
achieve.
This dev_fs issue sounds like a "unknown is disliked" situation, not ulnike of what
Linux has to go through to make waves in the IT industries..
My two cents worth.
-
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