Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 19:17:00 +0100 (MET) From: J Wunsch <j@uriah.heep.sax.de> To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org (FreeBSD-current users) Subject: Re: FS PATCHES: THE NEXT GENERATION Message-ID: <199602121817.TAA19448@uriah.heep.sax.de> In-Reply-To: <19888.823871509@time.cdrom.com> from "Jordan K. Hubbard" at Feb 9, 96 05:11:49 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
As Jordan K. Hubbard wrote: > > > hmm but devfs might be compulsory :) > > Erm.. I know you're probably joking, but since you bring it up. I > don't think that we should even ever consider making devfs mandatory > (optional is fine, I don't mind optional) until a persistance > mechanism that's fully transparent to the user is implemented. Despite of the dozens of other followups still sitting in my inbox (after only a three-day vacation...), just one point: Data General's DG/UX has just the sort of devfs as we have by now, their scenario seems to work fine for several years already. (Their devfs is creating generic device nodes, and the rc mechanism is linking them to ``short names''.) -- cheers, J"org joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de -- http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ -- NIC: JW11-RIPE Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199602121817.TAA19448>