Re: Devices.

[Mouse <mouse%Rodents-Montreal.ORG@localhost>]

> A working devfs that can be used in all places where device nodes
> might be needed would mean that the device vnode apparatus in ffs and
> every other fs could be removed, yes,

...only if you don't mind breaking compatability.

I don't know to what extent compatability is necessary, but I think
it's something that needs to be at least thought about.  Device nodes
in filesystems need to not break ffs (inter alia), or you can't mount
old filesystems and poke around, but to what extent do they need to
_work_?  I'm not sure what I think in that regard.

I actually think much of my resistance to a devfs is that it makes it
significantly more difficult to have device nodes outside /dev.  I've
used a Unix-ish emulation layer (an early prerelease of Eunice) whose
/dev was heavy magic, and it was always a bad fit; when I started using
the real thing it made much more sense.  Confining device nodes to /dev
strikes me as an excellent example of preventing stupid things and
thereby preventing clever things.  (Symlinks help, some, but without
set-id symlinks they can't really make up the difference.  And as far
as I know nobody, not even I, has implemented set-id symlinks yet.)

/~\ The ASCII				  Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML		mouse%rodents-montreal.org@localhost
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B