From owner-freebsd-current Sun Aug 15 5:46:59 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (critter.freebsd.dk [212.242.40.131]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 723ED14D35 for ; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 05:46:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by critter.freebsd.dk (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA14856; Sun, 15 Aug 1999 14:46:40 +0200 (CEST) (envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk) To: Narvi Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Kernel hacker tasks seek interested hackers In-reply-to: Your message of "Sun, 15 Aug 1999 15:36:31 +0300." Date: Sun, 15 Aug 1999 14:46:40 +0200 Message-ID: <14854.934721200@critter.freebsd.dk> From: Poul-Henning Kamp Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG In message , Narvi writes: > >On Sun, 15 Aug 1999, Poul-Henning Kamp wrote: > >[snip] > >> >> 7. [medium] The current naming for ptys doesn't scale that >> well. Changing it to ttyp%d / pty%d would probably be a >> good idea in the long run, but the ramifications are >> relatively widespread (think: "ports") >> > >Which while being scaleable in one direction (you can have things like >/dev/pty1234567890) as it is essentialy open ended, on the other hand: > > a) pty/tty names are now variable length > b) the name length advances quite quickly as we add more ptys > c) it is a totaly new "look and feel" > >So why not instead: I think that is needlessly complicated. I think tty%05d would solve all but the third of your objections, and quite frankly the "we've never done that before" argument works badly with me. -- Poul-Henning Kamp FreeBSD coreteam member phk@FreeBSD.ORG "Real hackers run -current on their laptop." FreeBSD -- It will take a long time before progress goes too far! To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message