John W. M. Stevens wrote:
Udev was a response to devfs.
Sadly, BOTH systems were poorly thought out.
...
> Udev was the user space devfs, but unfortunately, it was also designed
to cover all of dev, instead of just the sub-set of hot attach/detach
devices that make sense for a "dynamic" device file system.
Obviously, better interaction with existing kernel infrastructure is
necessary before udev can go live.
What wasn't thought out well with udev? (I'm asking whether you mean
there's a problem in its core design or whether you just mean that the
implications weren't all thought out and handled fully before users were
exposed to it.)
Daniel
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
