Re: devfs and udev

[insecure <insecure@mail.od.ua>]

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