From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S262123AbTJGNcU (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:32:20 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S262190AbTJGNcU (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:32:20 -0400 Received: from main.gmane.org ([80.91.224.249]:39394 "EHLO main.gmane.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262123AbTJGNcQ (ORCPT ); Tue, 7 Oct 2003 09:32:16 -0400 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: mru@users.sourceforge.net (=?iso-8859-1?q?M=E5ns_Rullg=E5rd?=) Subject: Re: devfs and udev Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2003 15:32:10 +0200 Message-ID: References: <20031007131719.27061.qmail@web40910.mail.yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Rational FORTRAN, linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:AS9Gtxyuzi8CY828IyKK9vqnE6k= Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Måns Rullgård mru@users.sf.net