Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.development Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!psinntp!psinntp!uuneo!sugar!peter From: peter@NeoSoft.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: Some ideas on the driver interface (New idea!) Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900 Date: Mon, 22 Mar 1993 22:54:06 GMT Message-ID: <C4BBM6.M9C@sugar.neosoft.com> References: <1993Mar19.074044.18995@gmd.de> <C45H42.8L1@sugar.neosoft.com> <1993Mar22.140045.206@gmd.de> Lines: 17 In article <1993Mar22.140045.206@gmd.de> veit@mururoa.gmd.de (Holger Veit) writes: > However, in contrast to you (I read this from your reply), I think that one shouldn't > implement anything just for the case it could be perhaps necessary in some future. No, I'm saying it's needed because of present practice. TTY files are one example, but I've found it necessary (and desirable) to change protection modes or create links to everything I can think of but /dev/mem on occasion, because the default behaviour was not compatible with software I was using, and patching the software was not an option. I'm not assuming the defaults are not sufficient. I know they arent, unless you make them as complex as implementing real file system semantics would be. -- Peter da Silva. <peter@sugar.neosoft.com>. `-_-' Oletko halannut suttasi tänään? 'U` Tarjoilija, tämä ateria elää vielä.