On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, David Gilbert wrote: DG>>>>>> "Daniel" == Daniel O'Connor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
