On Sunday 01 December 2002 21:42, Anders Johansson wrote:
On Monday 02 December 2002 04.36, Kevin McLauchlan wrote:
Ahhh... I had stopped looking too soon, when I didn't find "sr0" or "sda" or "so", as suggested in the "mount" error message (above).
I believe "so" is a word, not a device. "or so" == "or similar"
ok, ya got me on that one. :-)
why would SuSE be using a different device-naming convention than is expected by "mount" and other Linux infrastructure?
They don't. If you really don't have /dev/sr0 there's something seriously wrong with your setup.
sr0 and scd0 are identical, by the way. The names are completely unimportant, except as a way for programs to find the correct device. The only thing that matters is the major/minor number of the device.
ls -l /dev/sr0 /dev/scd0
brw-r----- 1 root disk 11, 0 2002-09-09 22:24 /dev/scd0 brw------- 1 andjoh users 11, 0 2002-09-09 22:24 /dev/sr0
As you can see, they are both major number 11, minor number 0, and that is what decides which piece of hardware they pertain to.
Ok, that makes sense. But then why have so very, very many redundant device names in /dev? Many of those letter-number sequences went to the dozens, if not hundreds. If they all need to be "configured" or otherwise pointed-to and equicalenced, why not just leave a couple of sample device names in /dev and let people just use 'em as models when they need 'em... since it seems we have to do some nipping and tucking anyway...?? Besides, if I recall correctly, a SCSI bus has some limits on the number of devices it'll physically support; what kind of machine would ever have enough real devices to use a fraction of ANY of those series? /k