Ethan Benson wrote: > > On Thu, May 24, 2001 at 05:04:44PM -0700, Andrew Sharp wrote: > > I've been typing standard unix device names for almost 20 years, and > > I've gotten pretty fast and handy at it. The devfs thing is a major > > annoyance to me, and so far I have been successful in ignoring it. > > you do know that devfs is 100% optional, 2.4 works just fine with > CONFIG_FS_DEVFS=n despite popular FUD spread by some devfs > apologists. also despite some unnamed powerpc kernel hackers attempts > to force the thing down our throats... > > > But how long will that last. What I want to know is, what question > > was devfs an answer to? There must have been one, right? Is it a
yes, and I've been opting it out ~:^) I was just wondering if someday it was planned to remove the option to just say 'no', like I hear is the plan for the input layer stuff. which isn't that bad IMHO unless no one remembers to tell the X package maintainers about it. sigh. > devfs is a solution in search of a problem. that's what I thought. > > posix thing? I suppose I could research these questions myself, but > > it's too hot outside. ~:^) > > devfs as it is will probably die, 2.6 is most likely going to do > something different. I hope and pray it's also "better." a
