Re: Devfs implementation.
Dylan Griffiths (Dylan_G@bigfoot.com)
Fri, 18 Jun 1999 12:38:45 -0600
I'm not sure why people are resisting Devfs. When I first found out
about it, I thought it was a great idea. There are some semantics
issues (ie: cdrom, mouse, video, and other common links need some form
of persistency and need to be pointing to the correct devices), but on
the whole it's a good concept.
Another point that I'm not sure if it has been missed, is that the
average user can't just go and make a new link in the /dev tree without
a proper understanding of it. Creating links for devices you have added
is a huge chore. Is the average user who is currently using windows
going to understand major and minor device numbers for creating a link?
No. One of the main reasons I love Linux is that is it, for the most
part, self-maintaining. Devfs is a continuation of this, and allows
easier shims of things like dynamic devices in the future. Would you
argue that procfs should also be a dir with major and minor number node
links for parts of kernel information? Linux is currently a good server
solution, but it won't be a good desktop solution until ideas such as
devfs are implemented.
-
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/