> 
> hmmm, guess i didn't think about that.   there's gotta be an solution, i just
> know there is!! :)

 we already have one! the kernel has been fine for years! We use the driver
as the differentiating factor for different device 'types' and therefore
device names. if some drifoo configures some device, then that device is 
foo's device, since foo gets to control it. so, since it if the driver 
foo who makes the interface thru the kernel to , ultimately a process, we 
name the device foosomething. This is simple., consistent, and it makes sense
considering that , well, the driver _is_ what drives the device! 

> 
> > Note that I'm not arguing against a locator-based scheme, just indicating
> > why engineering it into our current device model will not work.
> 
> finally.  this is what i need to know in order to stop being an ass about this.
> you are the first person who hasn't spewed out religious rhetoric at me when i
> ask this question.

what was religious rhetoric about what i just said? i said the same thing 
a day or two ago! i think this is a very smart organization/convention for
device names, and i find it nice that *BSD uses this convention, just one 
more think i like about it, and i dont think we shoudl change this. I 
find the soalris style names to be really awful. Some will agree with me 
and some wont, certainly. 

Isildur