From: zlsiial@uts.mcc.ac.uk (A. V. Le Blanc) Subject: Re: Device names (was Re: ttys2 not responding) Date: 14 Jul 1992 09:40:30 GMT
In article <710808938.F00117@remote.halcyon.com> Rob.Levin@f217.n3802.z1.fidonet.org (Rob Levin) writes:
>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....
In fact, there is a /dev/tty, which is in some respects like /dev/hda; i.e.,
/dev/tty1--n are specific as are /dev/hda1--n; /dev/tty (instead of tty0)
has a certain relation to all /dev/ttyn's, and /dev/hda (instead of hda0)
has a certain relation to all /dev/hdan's.
>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?
There are certainly situations in which autodetect does not work
successfully. For example, in testing the latest MCC interim Linux
(0.96c) I found at least one machine (a Victor 386sx) on which autodetect
of a 3.5 inch high density floppy of 1.44mb simply does not work.
Moreover, I have a fair number of odd sized floppies of various kinds.
I have not yet found a machine on which autodetect of a 360k 3.5 inch
floppy works. Yet I assure you that I have such disks, and that they
will not successfully format at 720k.
As to the suggestion that we abandon, for example, /dev/tty and /dev/hda
in favour of /dev/tty0 and /dev/hda0, I doubt you'll get much support
from the Linux standards people on this one. /dev/tty is assumed by
very many programs. As to /dev/hda0, it might suggest that /dev/hda0
is the same sort of device as /dev/hda1, which of course it isn't quite.
-- Owen
LeBlanc@mcc.ac.uk