Subject: Re: vnconfig is broken (was: vnd is broken?)
To: Peter Seebach <email@example.com>
From: Steven M. Bellovin <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/10/2005 17:45:40
In message <200505102108.j4AL8xEo023112@guild.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach writ
>>Make sure you don't have a file called vnd0 or vnd0d in the current directory
>This seems sorta crazy. I would assume that the sane default would be to
>assume that I want a device, and the system knows where devices come from.
>Having vnconfig check . is like having the shell check for a file called
>"./stdout" if I type "2>&1". If I want to specify a file in the current
>directory, I can.
>This behavior makes the by-far-most-common case unpredictable. That seems
>bad. The Principle of Least Astonishment dictates that devices should be
>taken from /dev by default.
More to the point -- what is the namespace for the argument? Are we
naming files or vnd devices? If the former, it makes sense to look in
. or whereever; if the latter -- and that's my opinion -- we shouldn't
worry about anything else.
--Prof. Steven M. Bellovin, http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~smb