And I agree with you Michael about the devices (and therefore device nodes)
not being persistant being a hinderance with the file-oriented UNIX system.
But there are several other UNIX philosophies (for instance, easy
scriptability) that make it still neccessary.
But I do definately believe that there is a way to have file-level access to
a dynamic system much better than the current /dev/* structure with
major/minor numbers. It just takes a little bit of arguing, and a lot of
code (or was that the other way around? ;-))
-David Waite
> -----Original Message-----
> From: otterley@attrition.dynamine.net
> [mailto:otterley@attrition.dynamine.net]On Behalf Of Michael S. Fischer
> Sent: Tuesday, October 05, 1999 11:37 PM
>
> "Theodore Y. Ts'o" wrote:
>
> > And the third part is the the filesystem interface which
> > makes "/dev" appear, and maintaines persistance of ownership and modes
> > across reboots, etc.
>
> I'm unclear as to why persistence is a desired thing with USB peripherals,
> because with USB, persistence is not guaranteed.
>
> You make a good argument that devices need access control. But why should
> we stick to inode-based policy mechanisms? Why not something more
> advanced?
>
> It just seems awfully silly to me that we're applying 1970s device access
> and access control methods to 1990s (and later) devices. Isn't there a
> better paradigm for this? The "device is a file" concept has its
> advantages, but now I'm beginning to think it's more a hindrance than a
> help, since the devices (and therefore the device nodes) can no longer be
> depended upon to be persistent.
>
> --Michael
>
> --
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: linux-usb-unsubscribe@suse.com
> For additional commands, e-mail: linux-usb-help@suse.com
>
-
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/