Alan McKinnon wrote:
Apparently, though unproven, at 22:12 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Dale did opine
thusly:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space
and they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them
in. Which is what vapier also says.
+1 They are tiny plus when devfs mounts, they aren't visible anymore if
I recall correctly. Doesn't devfs mount on top of them?
Well that's what "hidden from view normally" evaluates to.
But it's not devfs - that was an abomination that should never have been
suffered to live. It's mere existence offended GregKH so much that he whipped
up the beginnings of udev so that he might never see devfs ever again
It's "udev" and is normally mounted on a tmpfs
Correct. I was thinking about the old way. Still mounted on top of and
hidden as you say.
Dale
:-) :-)
