Date: Thu, 20 Apr 1995 23:24:18 +0200 From: Julian Howard Stacey <jhs@regent.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> To: Bruce Evans <bde@zeta.org.au> Cc: julian@ref.tfs.com, rgrimes@gndrsh.aac.dev.com, hackers@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: [DEVFS] your opinions sought! Message-ID: <199504202124.XAA08120@vector.eikon.e-technik.tu-muenchen.de> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 19 Apr 1995 10:30:55 %2B0200." <199504190830.SAA28041@godzilla.zeta.org.au>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >I personally have always prefered the flat scheme of /dev > I like it fairly flat. Suggestion: While deciding, assume sometime later you'll come across a half dead singler user system, with no mouse, & no X-11, & you'll be poking about in /dev, perhaps over a telnet, or a 24x80 old glass tty (or a pc running dos-kermit etc) ..... consider how much info you'll be able to see in a worst case 24x80 window .... & just to complete the Armageddon scenario ... assume /usr/bin/more is unmounted (eg corrupt /usr fs), & assume Control-S flow control is broken somewhere. When up multiuser, with /usr/bin/make & /usr/bin/gcc & /usr/bin/gdb & /usr/bin/vi & /usr/X11R6/bin/X & all the other `luxury' tools from /usr, `flat' or `deep' are both usable, but directories with _lots_ of stuff in can be a pain for 24x80 screens. Not that I'm any fan of deep nested dev dirs, just that I Know I'll be back in /dev sometime on a well broken box, in 24x80 mode. Julian S.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199504202124.XAA08120>