Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:22:02 +0200 From: Juan Rodriguez Hervella <jrh@it.uc3m.es> To: dickey@herndon4.his.com, Christopher Vance <vance@aurema.com> Cc: "Myron J. Mayfield" <nugent511@comcast.net> Subject: Re: /dev/shm Message-ID: <200307071022.04273.jrh@it.uc3m.es> In-Reply-To: <20030706203440.D89894@vhost101.his.com> References: <3F08B199.3050409@comcast.net> <20030707002347.GC5141@aurema.com> <20030706203440.D89894@vhost101.his.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Monday 07 July 2003 02:41, Thomas E. Dickey wrote: > On Mon, 7 Jul 2003, Christopher Vance wrote: > > On Sun, Jul 06, 2003 at 08:14:44PM -0400, Thomas Dickey wrote: > > : On Mon, Jul 07, 2003 at 01:58:19AM +0200, Marcin Dalecki wrote: > > : > Myron J. Mayfield wrote: > > : > >start it. It gives me an error saying cant find /dev/shm. I tried > > : > >adding this to /dev but was unable to. Does anyone have any > > : > > > : > For some unexcused reason there is the trend in Linux to represent > > : > everything as kind of a wired half finished pseudo file system. /proc > > : > pipe devicefs sysctl and so on... The list is really long. Even > > : > shared memmory is mapped to ehrm.... a filesystem. This is > > : > "expected" to be mounted at /dev/shm by the system. You can't expect > > : > FreeBSD to follow this path... > > : > > : Linux isn't the only system that does this (learn a little, criticize > > : less). > > > > If you're talking about Plan 9 or Inferno, they at least have a > > history of finishing their filesystems and understanding why it's done > > that way. If Linux attempts to copy without understanding, and > > doesn't complete the job, it doesn't imply that the original idea was > > a Bad Thing, only that the implementation sucks. > > Better, apparently to "copy" (not actually), rather than to whine in the > background... > > Still - your response is equally ignorant (Plan 9 is well known - even > to students), since it offers no useful information. > > The /proc stuff is used in "real" Unix's such as Solaris. Just checking, > I see that FreeBSD implements procfs, which is along the same lines. > > (still waiting for FreeBSD to "complete" a sysinstall program that doesn't > look as if it was an assignment for high-school interns). What's the matter with "sysinstall" ? I very much like "sysinstall" as it is now. :) See you. -- JFRH
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200307071022.04273.jrh>