Re: /dev/shm

On Monday 07 July 2003 02:41, Thomas E. Dickey wrote:
> 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).

What's the matter with "sysinstall" ?
I very much like "sysinstall" as it is now. :)

See you.

-- 
JFRH