Dev-fs benifits

Mike Bedwell thaz at
Thu Jul 12 21:53:56 PDT 2001

On Thursday 12 July 2001 05:43, you wrote:
> The people that condemn it as bloatware are concerned with the kernel
> memory requirements, not the the size of the /dev/ directory which is not
> an important factor relative to system performance.
> Besides you can do what I do and just do mknods for devices that you
> actually use or think that you might use in the future and then /dev will
> look very nice. jpd
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2001 at 11:51:00AM +0100, Leonardo Valeri Manera wrote:
> > Florin Boariu wrote:
> > > another .02$:
> > >
> > > it looks clean. do ls /dev (classic) and do ls /dev (devfs) and you'll
> > > know what I mean.
> >
> > aye, 'tis true.
> > that is why i cannot understand why some guru's condemn it as bloatware.

These are the issues I question.  I can easily mknod every device I need for 
my system, keeps it clean.  Although I love to have it easy and automatic, my 
questions lie around the performance issue.  Which is better?  To have devfs 
spending time to create devices on the fly, or to have them already there and 
searched for? .....
Unsubscribe: send email to lfs-discuss-request at
and put unsubscribe in the subject header of the message

More information about the lfs-dev mailing list