Date: Sun, 6 Oct 2002 09:52:43 -0600 From: Nate Williams <nate@yogotech.com> To: Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Cc: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au>, Steve Kargl <sgk@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: devfs oddity? Message-ID: <15776.23627.339787.784895@emerger.yogotech.com> In-Reply-To: <36088.1033885792@critter.freebsd.dk> References: <20021006144225.G15291-100000@gamplex.bde.org> <36088.1033885792@critter.freebsd.dk>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> > In message <20021005221611.GA17396@troutmask.apl.washington.edu>, Steve Kargl w
> >> > rites:
> >> > >root[208] cdcontrol play
> >> > >cdcontrol: no CD device name specified, defaulting to /dev/cd0c
> >> > >cdcontrol: /dev/cd0cc: No such file or directory
> >> > >
> >> > >Why is an extra "c" appended to cd0c?
> >
> >The first "c" is part of the standard name for the whole of a (labelled)
> >disk device.
>
> It's not any "standard name". It is a convention used on a minority
> of UNIX platforms out there, and it is certainly not "standard" even
> for BSD based systems.
It's certainly standard on every BSD based system I've ever used, which
goes *WAY* back. (Every BSD OS vendor has done it this way, including
Sun, DEC, HP, etc...)
> It is also illogical, counter-intuitive and prone to mistakes.
Then every standard is the same, since standards by their very nature
are illogical. Doing something the same way is illogical?
(If you haven't figured it out, I disagree *strongly* with the above
statement.)
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> phk@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Which also used 'c' as the entire 'whole' of a labelled disk device.
Nate
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?15776.23627.339787.784895>