| 1 |
On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:20:50 -0800 |
| 2 |
Mark Knecht <markknecht@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> While I understand your point these two comments contradict each |
| 6 |
> other, or more accurately, the first was inaccurate in the sense that |
| 7 |
> someone needed to create your /dev entry, either udev or you, it |
| 8 |
> didn't matter. Once it was there your scanner worked, correct? |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
With USB devices things are a bit different. If I plug in a USB |
| 12 |
gadget, the kernel will report a certain device. If I then unplug |
| 13 |
it and then immediately replug it, the kernel will report a different |
| 14 |
device even though it is the same USB gadget. For this reason, udev |
| 15 |
can alleviate the uncertainty by automagically constructing the |
| 16 |
correct device node. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
However, until recently, USB scanners were accessed through a kernel |
| 19 |
module and this allowed a static node to be created in the /dev tree. |
| 20 |
Using the kernel module access, SANE could always find the scanner. |
| 21 |
For some reason, the scanner module has been eliminated from the |
| 22 |
kernel and now udev is unconditionally necessary for scanner access |
| 23 |
(unless the user employs an awkward workaround). |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
This represents the future trend. Udev will be an absolute, total |
| 26 |
requirement for everything. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Admittedly, my views are in the (exteme?) minority. So it's goodbye |
| 29 |
simplicity and hello complicated junk. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I used to have a lot of fun building and tweaking my Linux system, |
| 32 |
but that experience is fading fast. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Frank Peters |
Archives