From: Rob.Levin@f217.n3802.z1.fidonet.org (Rob Levin) Subject: Device names (was Re: ttys2 not responding) Date: 9 Jul 1992 16:33:00 GMT
JWJ> ....My main concern in the naming of the devices is that they
be
JWJ> consistent, which I can see ttys[0-3] being more so than
ttys[1-4].
JWJ> Watch out for change on the next root disk.
Well, if we're going to be consistent, shouldn't we *then* change the
*local* consoles to tty[0-7]? Otherwise, we have tty[1-8], but
ttys[0-3], which isn't terribly consistent....
>The fd* discussion had much less unanimity. I was myself fed up
>with the Minix device names, which I could never remember, and
>decided to adopt the attractive proposal made by Linus himself at
>nearly the end of the discussion: /dev/fd0H1440, for example, means
>floppy disk drive 0 (opposed to 1), with high density (opposed to
>Q or D or S) on a 3 inch drive (H-Q-D-S for 3 inch drives, h-q-d-s
>for 5.25 inch drives) and 1440 kilobytes accessible (instead of
>1200, 720, 360, etc).
Well, far be it from me to splash water, doesn't the existence of
/dev/fd0 and /dev/fd1 sort of render all this complication *moot*? Are
there any situations where autodetect could *not* be used successfully?
If not, are there any situations where one would *want* to use the more
cumbersome forms simply for consistency purposes?
Rob L.
P.S. Shouldn't we consider starting our hard disk partitions with
/dev/hda0...? If not, why not...? ;-)
Rob
* Origin: Via the Annex in Victoria, TX (1:3802/217)