Re: /dev/shm

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).

-- 
T.E.Dickey <dickey_at_herndon4.his.com>
http://invisible-island.net
ftp://invisible-island.net