| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> Apparently, though unproven, at 22:12 on Tuesday 31 May 2011, Dale did opine |
| 3 |
> thusly: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
>> Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>>> Considering that ~250 devices consumes a teeny-weeny bit of disk space |
| 9 |
>>> and they are hidden from view normally, I say it's worth it leaving them |
| 10 |
>>> in. Which is what vapier also says. |
| 11 |
>>> |
| 12 |
>> +1 They are tiny plus when devfs mounts, they aren't visible anymore if |
| 13 |
>> I recall correctly. Doesn't devfs mount on top of them? |
| 14 |
>> |
| 15 |
> Well that's what "hidden from view normally" evaluates to. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> But it's not devfs - that was an abomination that should never have been |
| 18 |
> suffered to live. It's mere existence offended GregKH so much that he whipped |
| 19 |
> up the beginnings of udev so that he might never see devfs ever again |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> It's "udev" and is normally mounted on a tmpfs |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Correct. I was thinking about the old way. Still mounted on top of and |
| 26 |
hidden as you say. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Dale |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
:-) :-) |
Archives