Messages in this thread | | | From | (Måns Rullgård) | Subject | Re: devfs and udev | Date | Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:32:10 +0200 |
| |
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.
-- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net
- 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/
| |