On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Barry Schwartz <chemoelect...@chemoelectric.org> wrote: > Canek Peláez Valdés <can...@gmail.com> skribis: >> On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Frank Peters <frank.pet...@comcast.net> >> wrote: >> > Manually creating a /dev tree that perfectly reflects ones own system >> > is rather trivial. That's how Linux used to be and that's how Linux, >> > for the most part, still is. There is, or at least should be, no need >> > for udev or any substitute for udev. >> >> If you want to create a /dev tree for a computer that never gets new >> hardware connected via USB, bluetooth, or another bus, yeah, it's >> pretty trivial. > > What’s hard? You create nodes for those devices. If you have a lot of > devices, you create more nodes. With a script, you can create enough > nodes to wrap the earth a few times over. All udev does is create and > destroy nodes according to an unfathomable set of rules that changes > all the time.
I never said it was hard; but someone or something has to do it. You don't remember /dev ca. 2002 or 2003? It was a mess. Again, the important problem (the *interesting* problem), is to solve the general case. That means having nodes for *all* possible hardware out there, in *all* possible combinations. Of course every single user can keep a neat and clean /dev directory. The point is, most users don't want to do that. Using udev solves that issue *for every possible user using every possible hardware combination*. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
