>"Anthony Barbachan" wrote:
>> /dev/sd{a,b,c,...} is definately cleaner and simplier than
>> /dev/dsk/c0t0u0d0s0 (or whatever?!?!?!?). And EIDE devices definately do
>
>As a system administrator with over a decade experience, I must say that
>I disagree completely. The old naming scheme is problematic and ugly and
>the DEVFS one is practical and elegant. MHO.
>
>(I rather suspect that Anthony and some other detractors have never
>administered systems with multiple SCSI busses and more than a few
>drives.)
>
Note: I have worked with systems with multiple SCSI and EIDE buses and many
drives. And my main point is that there are main devices that do not need
the cryptic naming sceme as they limited by nature. (ex. EIDE devices,
serial ports, etc) And the main problem with the old naming sceme is with
devices that allow the connection of large numbers of other devices. Since
the problem is with these special cases then then change in the naming sceme
should be limited to these devices.
>Personally I really like DEVFS. It solves some real problems and it does
>it in a scaleable, forward-looking manner. Auto-generation seems like
>a quick-and-dirty hack by comparison. The counter-arguments I've seen
>seemed to mostly refer to vague aesthetic issues. I think the aesthetics
>of this kind of thing flow from its functionality, and by that DEVFS is
>beautiful.
>
I like some of the concepts of dev_fs as well. Others I am currently
neutral about. I am not arguing against the dev_fs theorem itself just the
against the unnecessarily changes in the currently device naming sceme.
SCSI might need a change but EIDE, serial ports, etc do not.
>--
> ~~/ /~)
> /.. /-<
> \_/ u r g e n /_ _) o t z
>
>
-
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