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