RE: DEVFS is very good compared to UDEV

["Hua Zhong" <hzhong@cisco.com>]

> I do not know the time line of the flames vs. any decisions made by
> Richard, though.

I believe this is what I saw but I am not exactly sure:

http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0110.3/0712.html

And at that time Richard claimed he was still active.

> And, yes, Al flames very hard and a bit rude -- but
> I have never seen him wrong, that is for sure ;-)

Me neither :-) and when he is not flaming me (which I have not got the
chance yet), it's fun to read. But I hate him, you know, because I now
tend to be influenced by the way he (and several others on this list)
writes emails, and that's not nice in a corporate environment!!

> So I cannot comment over _why_ defvs is unmaintained, but that is not
> the point: either way, it stands that devfs is unmaintained.  
> That is a problem in and of itself.

It's just my impression that around that time core developers had
decided to replace devfs with a new model. If I were in ths same shoes,
I would probably also stop maintaining it. Then 2 years later when
somebody asks, the reason to replace my code shouldn't be
"unmaintained". Just the technical reasons should be enough. :-)

> 	Rob Love