Horst von Brand wrote:
> Please do remember devfs: It sounded like a cool idea, got into the kernel
> just to be thrown out later because nobody used it.
Are you kidding? Lots of distros and many embedded Linuxes use devfs.
And udev _still_ doesn't create device nodes properly. (Hint: I have
to run two modprobe commands before pppd works. I have to run
modprobe before openvpn or bochs work.)
> What happened to "code talks, bullshit walks"?
devfs is a fine example of why code isn't enough. With devfs the code
came first, the >1 year of strategic bullshit politics from the "it's
not traditional unix" crowd came later, then it went in, then lots of
people used it, then it was replaced by something which still doesn't
work as well as 2.4 does with or without devfs, and people are still
using it despite it's faults.
-- Jamie
On Wed, Sep 01, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> And udev _still_ doesn't create device nodes properly. (Hint: I have
> to run two modprobe commands before pppd works. I have to run
> modprobe before openvpn or bochs work.)
Just because it is supposed to work that way.
--
USB is for mice, FireWire is for men!
sUse lINUX ag, nÜRNBERG
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:45:13PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> Horst von Brand wrote:
> > What happened to "code talks, bullshit walks"?
>
> devfs is a fine example of why code isn't enough. With devfs the code
> came first, the >1 year of strategic bullshit politics from the "it's
> not traditional unix" crowd came later, then it went in, then lots of
> people used it, then it was replaced by something which still doesn't
> work as well as 2.4 does with or without devfs, and people are still
> using it despite it's faults.
What is udev's faults that have an issue with?
Yes, we don't do module autoloading when opening a device node, but
that's well known, documented, and the way the kernel has evolved to
anyway.
thanks,
greg k-h
On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:22:57 +0200, Greg KH <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:45:13PM +0100, Jamie Lokier wrote:
> > Horst von Brand wrote:
> > > What happened to "code talks, bullshit walks"?
> >
> > devfs is a fine example of why code isn't enough. With devfs the code
> > came first, the >1 year of strategic bullshit politics from the "it's
> > not traditional unix" crowd came later, then it went in, then lots of
> > people used it, then it was replaced by something which still doesn't
> > work as well as 2.4 does with or without devfs, and people are still
> > using it despite it's faults.
>
> What is udev's faults that have an issue with?
>
> Yes, we don't do module autoloading when opening a device node, but
> that's well known, documented, and the way the kernel has evolved to
> anyway.
devfs was very natural, and simple solution. But to have it right, it
would have to be the only /dev filesystem.
But no, we like choices, so we have chaos.
Udev is just another thing adding to that chaos.
Someone was numbering things that are good in BSD design, in that
thread. One of those things was going for devfs. No cheap solutions.
One fs for /dev. And it works great.
Sorry for bit of trolling.
--
GJ
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>
>devfs was very natural, and simple solution. But to have it right, it
>would have to be the only /dev filesystem.
>But no, we like choices, so we have chaos.
>Udev is just another thing adding to that chaos.
>
>Someone was numbering things that are good in BSD design, in that
>thread. One of those things was going for devfs. No cheap solutions.
>One fs for /dev. And it works great.
>
>Sorry for bit of trolling.
>
>
Devfs was a ver good idea. The implementation of it
was a problem, and after some time nobody maintained it.
No surprise it had to go. Now udev+tmpfs can do the same
job, and more.
Helge Hafting
On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:54:26 +0200, Helge Hafting <[email protected]> wrote:
> Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>
> >
> >devfs was very natural, and simple solution. But to have it right, it
> >would have to be the only /dev filesystem.
> >But no, we like choices, so we have chaos.
> >Udev is just another thing adding to that chaos.
> >
> >Someone was numbering things that are good in BSD design, in that
> >thread. One of those things was going for devfs. No cheap solutions.
> >One fs for /dev. And it works great.
> >
> >Sorry for bit of trolling.
> >
> >
> Devfs was a ver good idea. The implementation of it
> was a problem, and after some time nobody maintained it.
> No surprise it had to go. Now udev+tmpfs can do the same
> job, and more.
udef is a one big mistake, having need for userspace tool to use FS is
at least silly.
I can understeand need for some things in kernel to have userspace
daemon. But FS is out of question the least one.
I am supprised noone wanted to maintain devfs. Maybe because people
didn't want to go to devfs only. But still to have classic /dev. It's
also silly, because person writing driver needs to choose between, or
implement all. That's more than bad. Once I have loads of time, and no
work in KDE, I can take over devfs happily :-)
--
GJ
On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 11:14:51AM +0200, Grzegorz Ja??kiewicz wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:54:26 +0200, Helge Hafting <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Grzegorz Ja??kiewicz wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >devfs was very natural, and simple solution. But to have it right, it
> > >would have to be the only /dev filesystem.
> > >But no, we like choices, so we have chaos.
> > >Udev is just another thing adding to that chaos.
> > >
> > >Someone was numbering things that are good in BSD design, in that
> > >thread. One of those things was going for devfs. No cheap solutions.
> > >One fs for /dev. And it works great.
> > >
> > >Sorry for bit of trolling.
> > >
> > >
> > Devfs was a ver good idea. The implementation of it
> > was a problem, and after some time nobody maintained it.
> > No surprise it had to go. Now udev+tmpfs can do the same
> > job, and more.
>
> udef is a one big mistake, having need for userspace tool to use FS is
> at least silly.
I have never heard of a program called "udef". Any pointers to it? :)
If it's such a big mistake, then don't use it. No one is forcing you
to.
> I can understeand need for some things in kernel to have userspace
> daemon. But FS is out of question the least one.
It's not a daemon (although to make things a bit easier on itself, it
does provide one by default, but some distros don't use it.) It just
creates device nodes when the kernel finds a new device, with a name
that you pick. Which is something that an in-kernel devfs can not do.
> I am supprised noone wanted to maintain devfs. Maybe because people
> didn't want to go to devfs only. But still to have classic /dev. It's
> also silly, because person writing driver needs to choose between, or
> implement all. That's more than bad. Once I have loads of time, and no
> work in KDE, I can take over devfs happily :-)
Well, until you do that, baseless criticism and trolling like this will
be ignored.
greg k-h
Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Sep 2004 10:54:26 +0200, Helge Hafting <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Grzegorz Jaśkiewicz wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>devfs was very natural, and simple solution. But to have it right, it
>>>would have to be the only /dev filesystem.
>>>But no, we like choices, so we have chaos.
>>>Udev is just another thing adding to that chaos.
>>>
>>>Someone was numbering things that are good in BSD design, in that
>>>thread. One of those things was going for devfs. No cheap solutions.
>>>One fs for /dev. And it works great.
>>>
>>>Sorry for bit of trolling.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Devfs was a ver good idea. The implementation of it
>>was a problem, and after some time nobody maintained it.
>>No surprise it had to go. Now udev+tmpfs can do the same
>>job, and more.
>>
>>
>
>udef is a one big mistake, having need for userspace tool to use FS is
>at least silly.
>
>
Well, devfs had devfsd - a userspace tool . . .
>I can understeand need for some things in kernel to have userspace
>daemon. But FS is out of question the least one.
>
>I am supprised noone wanted to maintain devfs.
>
I believe it had soemthing to do with the design - in order
to fix it you had to rewrite it almost from scratch. People
work on whatever they want to, and devfs wasn't it.
>Maybe because people
>didn't want to go to devfs only. But still to have classic /dev. It's
>also silly, because person writing driver needs to choose between, or
>implement all. That's more than bad. Once I have loads of time, and no
>work in KDE, I can take over devfs happily :-)
>
>
Go ahead! Perhaps you get it right. Then you'll have to
convince users of udev (or plain old /dev) that your way is better.
Helge Hafting
Salut,
On Wed, Sep 08, 2004 at 11:09:06AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> >udef is a one big mistake, having need for userspace tool to use FS is
> >at least silly.
>
> Well, devfs had devfsd - a userspace tool . . .
devfsd was not a requirement, it was only a tool for people who wanted
their old device names for devfs devices. I was once doing a miniature
environment for a package installation system which used pure devfs
(i.e. no old dev names), and it was doing super well without
devfs. sysinstall was the only process running, and I could install
Linux on any writeable device without using devfsd.
Tonnerre