On 13 March 2012, at 22:20, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > … >> udev does a *lot* more than that, for example the persistent naming of >> network interfaces. More significantly, it can run programs based on >> device rules. > > This is where I start getting unhappy. Is there any need for this > blurring? Having device nodes is essential to a linux system, and > some programs use these nodes. Why must they be mashed together into a > tasteless mush? Is there some advantage to this I haven't twigged yet?
Ok, so my system has 2 network cards. Maybe I only use one of them, or maybe they need to be physically connected in a certain way (one to LAN, the other WAN). Before asking this question, with the knowledge and understanding that we all already have, don't you have to first have to explain how you're going to ensure that eth0 is always assigned by the system to the first NIC and eth1 always to the second NIC? >> You could use this to argue that /usr should be mounted before udev is >> started, but you could just as well use it to argue that udev should not >> be trying to run such rules at the boot runlevel. > > Or that udev shouldn't have "rules". I still don't understand the basic > concept driving this thing. My HDDs don't need rules - they just need a > mapping from /dev/sd[ab] into device 8/0 and 8/16, and the appropriate > drivers built into my kernel. I'm assuming, then, that you're happy opening a terminal and typing `mkdir /mnt/diskname` and mounting the device every time you plug a new disk in? Wouldn't it just be nice to plug in your USB devices - hard-drives and flash drives - and have them magically appear on the desktop like they do on every other desktop operating system? Stroller.
