Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Tue, 30 Jan 2007 09:25:24 +0000
From:      Freminlins <freminlins@gmail.com>
To:        "Kris Kennaway" <kris@obsecurity.org>
Cc:        questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: mknod, devfs and FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <eeef1a4c0701300125n2056eb19m180b7389f1638d71@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <20070129142029.GA45960@xor.obsecurity.org>
References:  <eeef1a4c0701260840pef414f9h3e76fce789c06386@mail.gmail.com> <20070126174826.GA13730@xor.obsecurity.org> <eeef1a4c0701261505g7258ae9cx7bcb70a825fb8c88@mail.gmail.com> <20070126234756.GA19420@xor.obsecurity.org> <eeef1a4c0701280756m3014f3acu15398d43e7a309e2@mail.gmail.com> <20070128184925.GB61662@xor.obsecurity.org> <eeef1a4c0701290507n1aa08ebby380cc688f23ed09e@mail.gmail.com> <20070129142029.GA45960@xor.obsecurity.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
Kris,

On 29/01/07, Kris Kennaway <kris@obsecurity.org> wrote:
>
>
> To put it bluntly, it's something you're just going to have to get
> over :-)


That's unhelpful. It is, in my opinion, a bad idea to have to mount up 1400
instances of devfs just to get a few device nodes. It just doesn't seem
right. It's a kludge. What I will do instread is migrate the box to Solaris
where I can do what I want to do.

It's a poor argument to say basically "that's the way it is". I have always
found FreeBSD to be flexible, not restrictive.

If devfs is the only way to go, why does mknod still exist? Why does it
allow me to create device nodes that don't work?

Kris


Frem.



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?eeef1a4c0701300125n2056eb19m180b7389f1638d71>