>>> (thanks for the clarification), and that confirms that nothing has
>>> been created. I've also since found out that, despite package labeling,
>> How does it "confirm it"? You haven't shown me anything! Be specific,
> As I've stated in other posts in this thread, no new devices or links are
> created; the time stamps on two files change: /dev/ptmx and /dev/pts/1.
How do you know? I think I _asked_!
Quote:> I'm unable to communicate over the interface with either of these.
One is the pseudo-tty multiplexer, and the other is a ptty (one half
of). The latter entry does indicate that you have devfs up and running,
however! That's good.
>> Never heard of either. Does the module support devfs? Grep inside its
>> code for references to devfs, and we'll know.
> As I stated earlier, some of us are not computer professionals,
And? How does that stop you grepping in its source code for mention
of the word "devfs"?
Quote:>> Root cause? Your dmesg output would tell you.
> I'm not on that system at present so I can't give all the specifics, but I
> did check dmesg, and it reported no errors.
The module must report either error or success. It cannot do any third
>>> Huh? as revealed by ls -lR /dev, my /dev tree has 1441 entries, a bit
>>> much to scan by eye without missing something. This
>> Why are you scanning "by eye"?
> I'm not; I'm using diff. I'm replying here to other suggestions that it
OK, that's good. But I'd still expect you only to be interested in
Quote:> might have been easier for me to "manually" detect new devices (whatever
It is: ls -lrtR /dev | tail
Quote:> that means) than to wait for replies from the newsgroup. My point was that
> there are too many entries for this to be pratical.
There are not - you have a computer to help you.
Quote:>> You seem not to understand. You want to find entries that are newly
> I believe that I'm doing this by comparing the output of 'ls -lR /dev >
> somefile" before and after loading the module. This too appeared in an
diffing, you mean (cmp is something else). Yes, that helps, but I
wouldn't call it quite definitive. The ls -lrtR | tail output would
tell us about devfs, and grepping the driver source would tell you if
the driver used devfs or not. Looking at dmesg would show you what the
driver says about it all.
Quote:> earlier post in the thread. My point here was that perhaps the reason my
> system has a large number of entries is that there are leftovers from
There can't be; devfs starts from zero each boot.
Quote:> earlier installs. To quote from one of Mochun's replies: "That's the
> beauty of
>>>devfs it doesn't have hundreds of entries .."; well, my system _does_
> have hundreds of entries; I was merely making a guess as to why this might
Doesn't sound as though you have devfs at all .. or if you have, you
seem to be overwriting it with some other info. You might want to clean
out whatever excess devfsd puts in there.
Quote:> I had intended not to editorialize on the tone of your comments, but I
> can no longer resist. Your email address indicates that you may be in
> Spain, and perhaps English is not your native language, but you should be
> aware that your tone is condescending in the extreme (on the other hand,
It's not my intention, and my tone ain't condescending. I'm replying
fast and without concern for your feelings. That's all. If you feel
aggrieved by that, tough tooties. I'm not responsible for your huffs.
And I'm not going to take time out to sooth your ego.
Quote:> perhaps that's your intention). Your email address also includes the
> string 'it';am I correct in deducing that this refers to information
> technology? You seem not to be aware that linux is used not only by
No. It's "telecommunications engineering", more or less. Doesn't make
any difference, though.
Quote:> computer professionals, but also by others who are less knowledgable about
> it's inner workings. You may wish that this were otherwise, but the fact
> is that several organizations, e.g. Redhat, Mandrake, Ximian, are
> explicitly trying to make linux accessible to non-programmers, etc. The
> consequence is that many users will occasionally ask for guidance on
> issues beyond their current competence. I am among these. I am neither
> stupid nor lazy (some of your comments seem to imply both). I have
You read too much into what you do read. But answering me correctly and
competently will convince me of what you assert, not the assertions
themselves, so don't waste the e-ink! You've done quite well so far,
but you can do better still.
Quote:> expertise in several other areas of specialized knowledge,and I am happy
I have no "specialized knowledge".
Quote:> to share this with others in a non-confrontational manner. I hope for the
> same in this newsgroup.