From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S264443AbTLGQSy (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:18:54 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S264444AbTLGQSy (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:18:54 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:38882 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S264443AbTLGQSx (ORCPT ); Sun, 7 Dec 2003 11:18:53 -0500 Date: Sun, 7 Dec 2003 08:18:49 -0800 (PST) From: Linus Torvalds To: Eduard Bloch cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: cdrecord hangs my computer In-Reply-To: <20031207110122.GB13844@zombie.inka.de> Message-ID: References: <3FD1994C.10607@stinkfoot.org> <20031206084032.A3438@animx.eu.org> <20031206220227.GA19016@work.bitmover.com> <20031207110122.GB13844@zombie.inka.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sun, 7 Dec 2003, Eduard Bloch wrote: > > But somehow most Windows programers have easy way to deal with devices, > they have clear paths to get hardware access where on Linux there is > often something not thought out well which ruins your day. Examples? What? There _is_ a very well thought out way of accessing devices in UNIX. It is way superior to the mess that is windows. It is called a "device node", and a hypothetical program might use a syntax like this: record dev=/dev/hdc to access the device "/dev/hdc". This is nothing new. This is how UNIX has worked for the last thirty years or so. It's not only quite readable, but because everybody uses device nodes the same way, it's consistent which makes it even more pleasant to use. So if you were to want to mount the thing you recorded, you'd use mount /dev/hdc mntpoint and notice how we used the same name again? In contrast, the old cdrecord interfaces are an UNBELIEVABLE PILE OF CRAP! It's an interface that is based on some random hardware layout mechanism that isn't even TRUE any more, and hasn't been true for a long time. It's not helpful to the user, and it doesn't match how devices are accessed by everything else on the system. It's bad from a technical standpoint (anybody who names a generic device with a flat namespace is just basically clueless), and it's bad from a usability standpoint. It has _zero_ redeeming qualities. Linus