On Thu, May 04, 2000, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Thu, May 04, 2000, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > > I think we such standardize on what the rest of the kernel has standardized
> > > > on, devfs. If you don't want it, you lose on functionality.
> > >
> > > Dont expect vendors to be using devfs. Not for early 2.4
> >
> > Why not?
>
> Users dont like change, ISV's dont like change
This is the first time I've ever seen Linux held back because of fears or
anything.
Change is necessary. Why postpone it?
> devfs has some unsolved
> race conditions at least the last time Al Viro reviewed it.
So, limit the functionality because of some minor bugs?
> And it isnt clear its the right solution.
Ok, I've said this once and I'll say it again: Until someone can come up
with a better solution, it is the right solution.
This is a challenge to you and to everyone else.
I've made this challenge in the past, and I will continue making this
challenge until people who continually say devfs is not the right solution
do something constructive about it.
> So USB needs to work without devfs..
I don't buy this. I am not willing to hold back USB and more importantly
Linux because of FUD like this.
JE
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
