On 20 Oct 2001 09:36:14 +0200 "Stefan Nobis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ethan Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2001 at 06:50:42PM -0700, Rob Bos wrote: > > > > - /dev is 3k bigger > > > > > > How practical would it be to compile devfs and include devfsd in the > > > bootfloppies? > > > > the real installed system should not use devfs nor require it. > > Why not? There are only advantages, so where do you see the problem? > Everything that is possible to do with the old system is also possible with > devfs, but devfs has some nice new features like only showing you those > entries that really exists, no more need of that really braindead > device-numering system etc. > I like devfs because it _should_ be much cleaner, but IMHO it needs more time to mature (if time will help). A while back i experimented with a program that scanned various /proc files to get an idea of what storage devices are available. It turns out that even if you compile with devfs, there are places where the old style device names are still used (/proc/partitions i think was what anoyed me), for me this ruined devfs's elegence. I mentioned it on the linux kernel mailing list but nobody seemed to think it was an issue... i dont understand why they would want it like it is. Glenn -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
