From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262556AbTJGS2Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:28:24 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262647AbTJGS2Y (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:28:24 -0400 Received: from 168.imtp.Ilyichevsk.Odessa.UA ([195.66.192.168]:30480 "HELO 127.0.0.1") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S262556AbTJGS2S (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 14:28:18 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" From: insecure Reply-To: insecure@mail.od.ua To: mru@users.sourceforge.net (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=20Rullg=E5rd?=), linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: devfs and udev Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2003 21:28:09 +0300 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.4] References: <20031007131719.27061.qmail@web40910.mail.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <200310072128.09666.insecure@mail.od.ua> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tuesday 07 October 2003 16:32, Måns Rullgård wrote: > Bradley Chapman 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