Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual device

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. – ugen64 20:03, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Virtual device[edit]

"Virtual device" is not a term I've ever seen outside Wikipedia. Windows does have something called a "virtual device driver" (which is probably worth an article) but it's a completely different concept.

The files described in the article actually do exist, but they're called "special files" on Unix, and "device files" on DOS and Windows. Special/device files are actually a bigger topic, because they can represent both real and imaginary devices. But OS designers have never seen the need for a separate name for imaginary devices files. And even if they did, they wouldn't use the word "virtual" -- /dev/null isn't a virtualization of a real device, it's a pure software concept.

This article is now redundant with Device file and needs to go away. It should not become a redirect -- that would perpetuate a creative usage that only exists in the mind of the author. ----Isaac R 20:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, neologism. --Carnildo 22:44, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep. This is no neologism, but a term with a very, very long pedigree in UNIX and UNIX-like systems (just like it says in the article). Actually it probably even predates widespread use of UNIX. Here is an example of a RFC document produced by what was to become IETF, RFC 740, dated 1977, that uses the term in a commonplace manner, assuming that the reader understands what it means (and yes, we do). The relationship between virtual devices and special files is that virtual devices (like real devices) are implemented in UNIX using the special file mechanism. The article is wrong but the concept does exist and is distinct from special files. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 00:40, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I was wrong to claim that the term was never used before. But "virtual device" doesn't mean the same thing in that RFC that it does in the article. In the RFC, they're talking about a "virtual terminal", which is a software emulation (a virtualizaton) of a real-world device. In virtual device, "virtual" is used much more loosely, because none of the devices discussed exist outside of software -- you can't go to the computer store and buy a data sink! In other words, "virtual" is just a synonym for "pseudo". I challenge you to find another document where "virtual device" is used to mean "pseudodevice". ----Isaac R 01:34, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- virtual devices are well known and have a long and painful history. Remember VxDs? Arrgh. -- Cleduc 03:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isaac obviously does, given that he mentioned "virtual device driver" in his second sentence. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
  • Keep. Virtual device is a computing term in operating systems with a long history in Unix and Windows and possibly earlier. Try googling define:Virtual device. Quale 03:24, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fifth result in that search is this Wikipedia article, which is somewhat self-referential. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
      • And what are the other 4 results? You're talking to the wrong guy about this, since I started using Unix in 1981. Quale 19:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm talking to the guy who indirectly pointed to this article itself as a reference for demonstrating that the term exists. When you started using Unix is irrelevant. Uncle G 01:53, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
          • Well, it does make him an authority of sorts on Unix terminology. Then again, I started working with Unix even earlier than that -- and I simply never heard the term "virtual device" used. The man pages refer to things like /dev/null as "special files". ----Isaac R 03:04, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
            • Hey, I'm impressed. I know a few people who started with Unix in the mid-1970s, but not many. Also, I apologize to Uncle G for my peevishness. Sorry. 165.189.91.148 19:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC) Oops, not logged in. Quale 19:23, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The things actually described in this article are not virtual devices. Linux calls them (character devices with major number 1) "memory devices", for example. The NUL device is not a "virtual device" on MS-DOS, OS/2, and Windows. (It's most often known simply as "the NUL device", given that it is singled out for special treatment.) There are things known as virtual devices, and indeed they are (most commonly) the things provided by virtual device drivers. (It's a shame that Wikipedia conflates virtual device driver with VxD, because that's wrong. Not all VxDs are virtual device drivers, and not all virtual device drivers are VxDs. On OS/2 and Windows NT, for example, virtual device drivers are VDDs.) The serial device seen by DOS softwares running in a Virtual DOS machine is a virtual device, for example. This article is completely wrong, but it isn't lacking for a subject to discuss. Keep and send to Attention. Uncle G 04:41, 2005 May 24 (UTC)
    • OK, I agree. The article does have a real topic -- it just isn't what the author thought it was! ----Isaac R 05:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep cleanup and expand. Long history in computing. Megan1967 05:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep pseudo devices. Klonimus 06:14, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep if there's a virtual device driver, then there is a virtual device. Quite a commonly used computing term. Internodeuser 13:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Incorrect. Many virtual device drivers just add features to the Windows kernel, much like Linux kernel modules. Officially, they're not even called Virtual Device Drivers, but rather Virtual Extension Driver -- hence VxD. Etymology does not always follow a logical path. ----Isaac R 00:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this please ignorance is no excuse for deletion Yuckfoo 17:54, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nor is it an excuse for being rude. ----Yuckfoo2 00:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Virtual_device&oldid=50045515"