Scott Rotondo wrote: [...] > If you know the context, it's clear. My day-to-day experience is that I > frequently have conversations where not everyone has perfect context. > I'm imagining this kind of exchange: > > A: I was testing NFS over [insert arcane networking feature]. I copied a > few GB just fine, and then I hit an assertion failure. > > B: Were you using simlinks? > > A: No, just regular files. Why would that matter? > > B: I mean the network interface. > > A: No, it's a regular device node. [pause] Wait a minute, you're right. > The /dev entry is a symlink to something in /devices. I never noticed > that before. What do I do about that? > > ... and so on until enlightenment occurs.
I think the above exchange would be extremely rare that there would be confusion involving a specific class of data-links and device nodes. Even if such a rare instance did occur I am not sure if it is reason enough that we toss out a good name :) We are focusing on the one negative that there could be confusion in actual practice and leaving out all the positives in the name. Moreover I must add that the proposal along with the name did pass muster in the networking community :) Rishi
