On 9/25/09, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > reading a linux doc, which refers to /sys as an example of a > "virtual" file system. is that usage common? i normally refer to > things like /sys and /proc as "pseudo" file systems. and virtual file > system is dangerously close to suggesting the VFS, which is totally > different. > > thoughts on common usage? I am on the same page with you to say that /sys, /proc etc are better called pseudo file system instead of "virtual" file system. One of the reason, again I agree with you, that to avoid confusion with VFS as Virtual File System layer (abstraction layer of specific filesystem implementation. Second. I am not a native English speaker, so to me...gramatically pseudo and virtual seems interchangable. But I remember, when we talk about coding, we call it "pseudo code" to show general idea of what the codes are doing. The same also applies to things like pseudo random number. So maybe in mathematical or general technical terms, pseudo is more grammatically preferred. PS: Further thought, when we see FUSE...IMHO we could call it virtual file system, because it sits above the actual VFS layer and mostly used to represent something into filesystem alike e.g representing gmail inbox as folders and files. -- regards, Mulyadi Santosa Freelance Linux trainer blog: the-hydra.blogspot.com -- To unsubscribe from this list: send an email with "unsubscribe kernelnewbies" to ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxx Please read the FAQ at http://kernelnewbies.org/FAQ
