Subject: Re: Standard Proposal for Device Naming

From: David Engel <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 11:40:16 CST

> 
> 
> Well, I have put my brain in gear and after hearing all of the discussion, 
> have come up with a proposal.

All in all, I think I could live with it.  I still have the following 
comments, however:

>   Floppy Disk Devices
> 	/dev/{r}fd[N][S][D]
>                 r == if specified, designates a raw (character) device
> 		N == [0-1] Floppy disk number [0=a, 1=b]
> 		S == [3,5,8] Disk Size in inches (rounded)
> 		D == [sdq] Density (capacity depends on S and D)
> 				h = "high" density
> 				l = "low" density

I think we should stick with the standard density names, ie. d=double,
q=quad and h=high.

I would like to see the standard explicitly allow (maybe even encourage)
users to add generic, shorthand, localized names/links for the devices 
used on their system.  Examples might be:

	/dev/hd2b	second primary partition on my third hard disk
	/dev/fd1d	double density diskette in my second floppy drive
	/dev/tty03	my fourth serial port 

This would create a definitive set of device names with consistent major/
minor numbers across all Linux systems, but also provides standard names
for people like me who don't want to specify the controller number and
size of media every time we reference a device.

-David
-- 
David Engel                        Optical Data Systems, Inc.
[email-masked]                      1101 E. Arapaho Road
(214) 234-6400                     Richardson, TX  75081

---

From: Alan B Clegg <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 12:42:52 EST

> All in all, I think I could live with it.  I still have the following 

Thanks..

> I think we should stick with the standard density names, ie. d=double,

How many really use all three?  Are there still 720k floppy disks around?
Why define more than we need?  If the need is there, I agree (infact, my
original draft [internal use only] had Low, Double, and Quad, until I tried
to find a use for all three... LET ME KNOW!

> 	/dev/tty03	my fourth serial port 

I disagree.  This leads to confusion (ESPECIALY ON SERIAL DEVICES) of locking
mechanisms.  Is every version of UUCP, kermit and pcomm supposed to know
that /dev/tty03 == /dev/ttys3 when creating /usr/spool/uucp/LCK..tty03?

This is a __MAJOR__ problem.  I recommend that we find one set of devices and
make that the *STANDARD* and let people evolve into using them.  We did the
same for the directory tree (not that I have seen any use of it, but..) and
everyone seems to get along OK with it...

-abc
-- 
[email-masked]				Alan Clegg - Network Programmer
KD4JML (just my luck!)			MCNC -- Center for Communications

---

From: [email-masked] (Michael K. Johnson)
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 92 12:13:00 CST

From: David Engel <[email-masked]>

   > 		S == [3,5,8] Disk Size in inches (rounded)

What about the 2 inch floppies in some laptops?  We ignoring them?
Ok, fine.  That's a good idea, actually, since they never took off and
I think act like 3.5's at quad density anyway.  (someone correct me if
I'm wrong...)

now also e=extra, for the 2.88.  Linux will support them someday, if
it doesn't already... (I don't have any...  wouldn't know)

Of course.  That's the thing that I think gets missed as we discuss
all this.  There has been talk as if the device name has to be instantly
transparent to every user, even if that requires a name 20 char's
long.  Well, I'm exagerating, but really, we need a standard that
makes sense to the hacker and will be reasonble to program with, not
one that is instantly transparent to joe dos user -- That is what
documentation is for.  I am not saying that we should unnecessarily
make things difficult -- not by any means -- but that most users
should not have to deal with /dev names very often, and that when they
do, they shouldn't have to type extremely long names.

This most recent proposal of Alan's I think fits the bill very nicely.
We need an absolutely standard and reasonable orthogonal system of
naming, and this provides it.  I am certainly not attacking joe dos
user, as that is where I have come from too, though with some exposure
to unix as a standard user for the last few years.  And in the
documentation, I am putting a high priority on reaching joe dos user.
I just think... Well, re-read the last paragraph :-).

One small suggestion/idea:

should we specify a link from /dev/lp to whatever the "standard
printer" that the user wants to use normally is?  That way, things
print on /dev/lp without having to be configured to use
/dev/par[something] or /dev/ttys[something] for those with serial
printers.  I imagine that the default value of this link would be a
link to the first par port...

Comments?

michaelkjohnson
[email-masked]