Daniel B. wrote: > 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.)
I think the people who don't like udev don't like the core design because it works in the opposite way devfs did. With devfs, a program would access a /dev entry and the kernel would load the appropriate kernel module. With udev, you have to load the kernel module (and the device you want to use must be "on") before an entry appears in the /dev directory. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
