> There's nothing wrong with console being a ctty, practically speaking.
> The "steal all the console messages" is ludicrous.  Where'd that come
> from?  Stuff that logs to the console is, in all probability, logging
> someplace ELSE as well, so it wouldn't be lost...

See xconsole(1)
Actually I can think of places where it would be useful to have
the /dev/console output going to multiple places!

> Also, if /dev/console and /dev/syscons talk to the same endpoint
> (which they will if they have the same major/minor.  Think about it...),
> you're not gaining anything except, perhaps, the ability to open by
> a different name.

They take different paths through the kernel (ie they don't have the
same major/minor) even though the data streams end up in the same place.

> Even the evil trinity of console/syscons/systty afforded only name
> separation in reality -- Most times syscons/systty were hard-linked
> to /dev/console.

In this case there is a need for them to be actually separated, and
the easiest way to do this is to separate the names.
(I'm not suggesting the name split to allow the option of the devices
being separated by changing the /dev entries.)

> I don't see the separation as enough of a win to justify the effort
> needed to contemplate the amount of work required to consider
> implementing it.

Work cost and size of implementation and both minimal.

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk