Messages in this thread | | | From | insecure <> | Subject | Re: devfs and udev | Date | Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:28:09 +0300 |
| |
On Tuesday 07 October 2003 16:32, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Bradley Chapman <kakadu_croc@yahoo.com> writes: > > I think the two things which really prevented devfs from working were: > > It's always worked just fine for me. > > > 1. The namespace was too different from the original and required > > additional configuration to maintain compatibility (devfsd and changes to > > core /etc files.) > > Since when do Linux developers resist changes? > > > 2. Devfs was not immediately picked up my the major distros, which meant > > that any moderate end-user who wanted to use it would have to be careful > > when setting it up or risk massive core breakage due to the changed > > device nodes (initscripts failing and the like). > > Had it been pushed harder, they probably would have done it. > > > I used it for a very long time, personally; it was a good idea, and it > > had potential. If the namespace that had been used was the same flat > > namespace as the original /dev, it would have probably taken off. As it > > is, I think udev is the new way of doing this (I haven't used it yet). > > The different naming was one thing i liked about devfs. Go read the > archives from a couple of years ago, and see that the exact same > arguments that were used to promote devfs, are now said to be bad > things. This sudden change is what I don't understand, and how the > not-working udev is supposed to be able to replace devfs.
I am pro-devfs guy too. If its internals are bad in some way or other, internals may be fixed. But devfs userspace-visible interface was not flawed (IMO).
What am I supposed to do, starting to use mknod again? Uggggh... -- vda - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |