From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S265878AbUBJN7v (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:59:51 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S265881AbUBJN7v (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:59:51 -0500 Received: from h24-82-88-106.vf.shawcable.net ([24.82.88.106]:62347 "HELO tinyvaio.nome.ca") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id S265878AbUBJN7u (ORCPT ); Tue, 10 Feb 2004 08:59:50 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 06:00:18 -0800 From: Mike Bell To: Ian Kent Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: devfs vs udev, thoughts from a devfs user Message-ID: <20040210140018.GG4421@tinyvaio.nome.ca> References: <20040210113417.GD4421@tinyvaio.nome.ca> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.5.1+cvs20040105i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:32:57PM +0800, Ian Kent wrote: > So if devfs is needed by people then we must get together and do what is > needed to support and develop the product. > > Lets not forget that, at this point, udev is a recommended replacement for > devfs, but is (I believe) still in development. So it may well happen > that udev is an appropriate replacement for devfs at some point and that > must be considered fairly and sensibly when the time comes. I agree that if udev is going to be maintained while devfs is left to rot, udev is the way to go. My post was because the impression I got from the udev author's posts was that devfs was dead and udev was the designated successor, and superior in every way. Only when I really looked at the arguments did I start to question. So really, I was trying to ensure I was correct about devfs (or the concept, at least) still offerring some things that the udev concept never will, and to see if there were other people who would still like to see devfs (or a devfs-alike, reimplemented without its various problems) live on. It's pretty hard to form a user community for devfs when it has been declared dead and its successor named, but that's very much the impression I get from the udev author's posts (or at least those reproduced in places like kernel-traffic). So yeah, not an attempt to start a flamewar, I just wanted to register myself as someone who doesn't see udev as the ideal solution, and see if there were any others.