Am Freitag, den 04.02.2005, 11:15 -0600 schrieb Thomas Cameron:
> I have to agree with Kevin on this. I am really amazed at the whole > udev
> debacle. To me it seems that we are trying to adopt a form of "Plug and
> Play" for Linux. While the concept is cool, I wonder if it is really
> necessary. What I mean is, the old method (tons of files in /dev) Just
> Worked(TM). If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
>
So it really had worked? Hmmm. I plugin my USB Stick got it mount to the Desktop, i plugin Mouse and other Stuff and Xorg loads it.
On my machine, yes. In FC2 I had no issues at all with my USB stuff. I will freely admit though, that my USB stuff was pretty simple - a pair of external USB2 drives.
Afaik as Linux goes to the Desktop it should be in there.
As we are all FC3 User we know that using the newest Distribution is something like beeing a Test Object for the Developers. You wan't stable and well tested feature's? Stay one Release behind.
I'm not arguing that either.
You wan't bleeding egde? Well then install the newest Release. But installing the newest Stuff and whining that it doesn't work as you expect it is not clever.
Not trying to be clever. I don't think I'm "whining," either. I am simply saying that I don't understand the motivation for udev.
I'm also not saying that I think udev is bad. I am just saying that I don't understand the move to it. In my experience (which is certainly not authoritative - it is just my experience), the old method worked great. So to me, it doesn't make sense to change it.
I guess what I am saying is, I would like it if someone could explain the benefit of udev vs. the old method. I am not trying to be argumentative - this is a legitimate request for knowledge.
Just my 2 Cents.
> Now having said that, I am not a programmer so I am not sure how much > work
> it has been to keep all of those special files.
>
> Thomas
Grets
I'm sorry, what is "Grets?"
Thomas
