1 |
You're totaly right. udev is really not usable yet. I was happy |
2 |
when i first saw the planed features. But once i got the |
3 |
FAQ/Docs i was really disapointed. And this disapointment |
4 |
increased after i downloaded the tarball. |
5 |
|
6 |
I highly suggest not moving to udev yet. Even if devfs is marked |
7 |
obsolete in kernel it's far better than udev which is in alpha |
8 |
state. Ofcourse one day we will ne forced to adopt udev so it's |
9 |
not a bad idea to check it out etc. but please don't switch to |
10 |
it now. It's really not ready and causes far more problems than |
11 |
devfs. |
12 |
|
13 |
On Mon, Oct 20, 2003 at 10:56:19PM -0700, C. Brewer wrote: |
14 |
Content-Description: signed data |
15 |
> I tried out the 0.2 version of udev today, and I realize that its way rough |
16 |
> so early in the development, but I must say I was disappointed with it's |
17 |
> current implementation ( and the lousy attitude of the udev FAQ "if you don't |
18 |
> like it stick with devfs" didn't help). Currently I have some small concerns |
19 |
> about adopting this as a whole ( somewhere on down the line)- |
20 |
> |
21 |
> 1)The present package consists of a tarball with just about every device node |
22 |
> you could make (excepting small things like sound, ppp, more than 4 ttyS*'s) |
23 |
> Is this going to be a standard, or will some form of intuitive /dev entries be |
24 |
> imp'd? IIRC, the tarball is about 1.4k device nodes, and I think I need 100 |
25 |
> on the outside. |
26 |
> |
27 |
> 2) Since this won't automatically create these nodes ( unless a hotplug event |
28 |
> occurs), or load the dependent modules, doesn't this seem like a step back to |
29 |
> the old system, but with a name-mapping steroided hotplug? |
30 |
> |
31 |
> 3) Don't get me wrong..I'm not flaming the package,and I realize devfs is crap |
32 |
> as well..but the score is devfsd( crap but makes nodes and loads mods on the |
33 |
> fly) and udev (maps names and supposedly does stuff with hotplugging that |
34 |
> hotplug never amounted to.( and is dev'd by the hotplug peeps?ironic)). All |
35 |
> that aside, what is udev going to do for the desktop? I have devices I could |
36 |
> swap(USB) but with most comps coming with like 6 usb ports, I cant see more |
37 |
> than some pendrive swapping at user level. Yeah, I know theres peeps out |
38 |
> there with 80 pendrives and 8 hot-swappable hdd's, but is this the majority |
39 |
> of users? For the likely many of us who dont need to swap and have had the |
40 |
> same hardware on the same nodes that dont ever change..what does udev bring |
41 |
> to the table? |
42 |
> |
43 |
> Forgive me if I've gone delusional.. I was just under the impression that udev |
44 |
> was going to do everything that devfsd does now _and_ add name mapping, and |
45 |
> apparently I was wrong. I'm just planning for the future since seeing the |
46 |
> udev changes going into our init system.. we got no choice about the devfs |
47 |
> and I feel it's going the same way for udev. I'm not trying to slight the |
48 |
> obviously hard work that was put into it, but what about choice? to devfs or |
49 |
> not to devfs? to udev or not to udev? Or is it merely choice with package |
50 |
> selection, and not with the overall package that is Gentoo? |
51 |
> |
52 |
> Criticism appreciated, discussion welcomed, craziness and flames- please pipe |
53 |
> to /dev/null:) |
54 |
> -- |
55 |
> Chuck Brewer |
56 |
> Registered Linux User #284015 |
57 |
> Get my gpg public key at pgp.mit.edu!! Encrypted e-mail preferred. |
58 |
> |
59 |
> |
60 |
|
61 |
|
62 |
|
63 |
-- |
64 |
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list |