A quick request from -everyone- involved in this discussion: if you
haven't actually downloaded, built, installed, and worked with the current
devfs implementation, you really have no idea what you're disparaging, and
you're going on the word of several present users and many non-users.
Take half an hour of your time away from this insane debate, download the
devfs patches, and give them a try on a non-production machine. See what
is actually involved. Poke through the code a bit. Get a feel for what
you're arguing wholesale for or against.
IN OTHER WORDS: If at all possible, -everyone- resist posting on this
topic for at least 24 hours, and take all the time you'd otherwise be
bitching about how "devfs does this" or "devfs doesn't do that" for
constructive examination of Richard's work. If someone posts an
inflammatory post, IGNORE IT. 24 hours. It's not much to ask. I'll be
honoring it, I hope you all do as well.
The patch is available at:
http://www.atnf.csiro.au/~rgooch/linux/kernel-patches.html
If you're already familiar with it, GREAT. Take the next 24 hours of your
time to collect a series of coherent, rational arguments regarding why the
kernel proper should contain devfs, with attention to the arguments
against it that you've already seen (go back the the kernel archives and
re-read some of them, if you have to).
Ye ghods, we've become a list full of petty children squabbling over our
OS de jour.
-- Edward S. Marshall <emarshal@logic.net> [ What goes up, must come down. ] http://www.logic.net/~emarshal/ [ Ask any system administrator. ]
- 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/