Re: OT] Joerg Schilling flames Linux on his Blog

[Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com>]

On 6/1/05, Joerg Schilling <schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> Dmitry Torokhov <dmitry.torokhov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > Yes it could but why should it? The purpose of udev is to maintain
> > dynamic /dev. Do you want to have thoustands quirks in udev to cope
> > with bazillion configuration files for utilities whose authors refuse
> > to adopt standard naming convention [for the operating system in
> > question].
> 
> You show exactly the habbit that makes me unwiling to believe it makes
> sense to put effort into anything in Linux that is not at least 5 years old.
> 
> 10 Years ago, Linux was completely unsuable with Linux /dev/sg* naming
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> and mapping conventions. After I did develop an abstraction layer that
> made Linux usable people could use stable dev= parameters across
> reboots of Linux.

Joerg, that is the problem. It was 10 years ago. USB was not existant,
Firewire wasn't there, FC, etc. You could rely on your naming then.
But it was last millenium, now dev= parameters are anything but
stable. It just does not cut anymore, while using device node to
specify device you want to work with is natural. And I am willing to
bet if you give this oprion to users of other Unix-like OSes they
would not complain either.

-- 
Dmitry