On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, David Gilbert wrote: DG>>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel O'Connor <doconnor_at_gsoft.com.au> writes: DG> DG>Daniel> The only reason most people will ever touch /dev is to either DG>Daniel> make devices (hence no longer necessary with devfs), or change DG>Daniel> permissions. The later is more difficult with devfs, but IMHO DG>Daniel> the tradeoff is worthwhile. DG> DG>This brings me to my (small) beef with devfs. When you invoke an DG>abstraction, a metric of the usefulness of that abstraction is how DG>well the abstractions metaphors map onto the target system's DG>metaphors. DG> DG>So as a filesystem, devfs does will by replicating the average DG>person's view of should be in /dev ... subject to what devices are DG>actually found... DG> DG>But filesystems also have persistence. In the trivial case, the DG>persistence of the object (say ... a disk) preserved the filesystems DG>node. But if I walk into /dev and change the permissions on a node, DG>this persists only until the next reboot. Filesystems not necessarily have persistance. Although it would be fancy to be able to backup and restore /proc or /portal. Many devices (especially with all this hot-plugable stuff today) are not persistant, why should their representation be? harti -- harti brandt, http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/research/cc/cats/employees/hartmut.brandt/private brandt_at_fokus.fraunhofer.de, harti_at_freebsd.orgReceived on Thu Oct 09 2003 - 06:22:17 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:37:24 UTC