| 1 |
On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Barry Schwartz |
| 2 |
<chemoelectric@×××××××××××××.org> wrote: |
| 3 |
> Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> skribis: |
| 4 |
>> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> wrote: |
| 5 |
>> > Manually creating a /dev tree that perfectly reflects ones own system |
| 6 |
>> > is rather trivial. That's how Linux used to be and that's how Linux, |
| 7 |
>> > for the most part, still is. There is, or at least should be, no need |
| 8 |
>> > for udev or any substitute for udev. |
| 9 |
>> |
| 10 |
>> If you want to create a /dev tree for a computer that never gets new |
| 11 |
>> hardware connected via USB, bluetooth, or another bus, yeah, it's |
| 12 |
>> pretty trivial. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> What’s hard? You create nodes for those devices. If you have a lot of |
| 15 |
> devices, you create more nodes. With a script, you can create enough |
| 16 |
> nodes to wrap the earth a few times over. All udev does is create and |
| 17 |
> destroy nodes according to an unfathomable set of rules that changes |
| 18 |
> all the time. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
I never said it was hard; but someone or something has to do it. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
You don't remember /dev ca. 2002 or 2003? It was a mess. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Again, the important problem (the *interesting* problem), is to solve |
| 25 |
the general case. That means having nodes for *all* possible hardware |
| 26 |
out there, in *all* possible combinations. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Of course every single user can keep a neat and clean /dev directory. |
| 29 |
The point is, most users don't want to do that. Using udev solves that |
| 30 |
issue *for every possible user using every possible hardware |
| 31 |
combination*. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards. |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 36 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
| 37 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives