Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 21:04:24 +0100 (CET) From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> To: dhw@whistle.com (David Wolfskill) Cc: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: DEVFS, the time has come... Message-ID: <199901282004.VAA01522@yedi.iaf.nl> In-Reply-To: <199901281743.JAA19684@pau-amma.whistle.com> from David Wolfskill at "Jan 28, 99 09:43:33 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As David Wolfskill wrote... > >From: Wilko Bulte <wilko@yedi.iaf.nl> > >Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 23:12:18 +0100 (CET) > > >Yeagh... what is wrong with ed0, de0, fxp0 etc that needs changing? Is this > >just a matter of taste or is there more to it? I for one don't see any > >advantage in eth[0-9] style device naming. > > It's a matter of whether you want the name to reflect the implementation > vs. the function. > > For someone involved in the details of the implementation, being > (acutely!) aware of those details can be very important. Guilty your honor ;-) My daily work is in supporting customers, so I can really do without mapping 'convenient names' to physical stuff. For an example: look at the Solaris symlink jungle for device naming. > For someone who merely wants to have a certain physical port on the > machine connected to a particular network, that level of detail is not > always appropriate. > > It depends on your focus. Agreed. Wilko _ ______________________________________________________________________ | / o / / _ Bulte email: wilko@yedi.iaf.nl |/|/ / / /( (_) Arnhem, The Netherlands WWW : http://www.tcja.nl ______________________________________________ Powered by FreeBSD __________ To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901282004.VAA01522>