On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 10:25:29AM -0600, Hugo Vanwoerkom wrote: > Mitchell Laks wrote: > > "Last time" (TM) I tried udev it was a disaster. I now run 2.6.15-ck3 > w/o udev. Everything fine. > > This subject keeps coming up and as I watch the threads AFAICS udev's > rationale is architectural. Better for the world ultimately, but as of > yet a headache for the "common user", most of the time?, many times?, > sometimes?
Udev was a response to devfs. Sadly, BOTH systems were poorly thought out. Devfs tried to cover dev, but was a VFS file system that the kernel maintainers thought violated the unspoken, unwritten design rules of the kernel (devfs forced "policy" into the kernel, or so it was claimed), besides having a few bugs early on. Udev was the user space devfs, but unfortunately, it was also designed to cover all of dev, instead of just the sub-set of hot attach/detach devices that make sense for a "dynamic" device file system. Obviously, better interaction with existing kernel infrastructure is necessary before udev can go live. John S. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
