On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 09:15 -0700, Craig White wrote: > On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 16:00 +0000, Paul Howarth wrote: > > On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 08:53 -0700, Craig White wrote: > > > On Sat, 2005-02-05 at 15:36 +0100, Felipe Alfaro Solana wrote: > > > > On 5 Feb 2005, at 06:02, Kevin Fries wrote: > > > > > > > > > This morning I had to re-install Windows because udev failed to build > > > > > the /dev link for a USB based scanner. This has set my transition to > > > > > a Linux network back 2 years. And I get accused of whinnying. > > > > > > > > Please, read the following article: > > > > > > > > http://www.reactivated.net/udevrules.php > > > ---- > > > nice link > > > > But it doesn't address Kevin's problem, which is a USB timeout, not a > > failure to find a node in /dev. > > > > See: > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-list/2005-February/msg01289.html > > > > If the USB driver in the kernel is having problems with the device, it > > can't identify the device and create a node for it. I doubt that the > > situation would be any better with a static /dev entry for it either. > ---- > ahh - that guy and that problem. > > His problems (via personal 'un-invited' email to me) seem to be more > like... > > - his desire to consider Fedora as 'stable' when it's stated goals are > to be 'testing' distribution > > - his mission to offer Fedora as a drop-in, hassle free replacement for > Windows > > and of course, as you mention, hardware that doesn't play nicely. Having said that, bug #128602 - "USB device dies with `control timeout on ep0in'" (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/beta/show_bug.cgi?id=128602) has a lot of comments from people with hardware that works fine in FC1 and FC2 but not in FC3, so the problem would seem to be with FC3 (and not just the 2.6.x kernel, as FC2 has that as well), so it's no wonder that udev is getting a lot of fingers pointed at it, even if in many/most cases it's probably not the culprit. Paul. -- Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
