On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 11:50:51PM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote: > On Thu, 2004-12-16 at 19:59 -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 16, 2004 at 02:11:38PM -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote: > > > This is just a copy of your pre-udev device entries. They're not used > > > for anything, they're just pretty much there for your reference. > > > > I've been wondering about this. Say you're not interested in the usual "my > > /dev is emptier than yours" dick-waving contest... you want what's in /dev > > to stay in /dev. But you actually want udev's symlink-making ability for > > some silly reason. Can udev actually operate this way, or is all it can do > > the usual Gnomish "I know how you should use your computer better than you > > do" crap? Let it mount a gods-be-damned tempfs if it wants, but let it > > also put everything INTO that tempfs. > > > > Well? Can it? > > Not to the best of my knowledge. Though I honestly can't see WHY you > would want to still have all of the entries there. Because I have absolutely no interest in all the idiocies that result from removing them (cf. endless idiot postings on d-u whining about what happened to $RANDOM_DEVICE). There is no REASON to remove them. They harm nothing, and you don't have to depend on some fscked up daemon (gee, just what we need, another daemon) to recreate them at need. The only gain from a dynamic /dev will be if and when Linux moves to dynamic device nodes. > I personally think that the ability to do an "ls" in /dev and not have to > sit there for the next 7 minutes while every useless device I'll never > encounter is listed to be a priceless feature. Man, you live a boring life. And have an incredibly slow machine to boot, if it takes seven minutes. What POSSIBLE reason would you have for even *doing* that? And who cares anyway? See note above about the "my /dev is emptier than yours" dick-waving contest rei $ time ls /dev ... much output... real 0m0.238s user 0m0.013s sys 0m0.007s rei $ ls -l /dev | wc -l 1632 Oh, darn... so many device nodes... and I can just ignore 90% of them. And the 10% I *do* care about, I don't have to worry about some daemon and whether it'll recreate them or not. The bloody information is ALREADY on the disk... howinhell do you think you control what udev does? Incense in the air? Why in the world do you think writing a configuration for some daemon so that IT can do it every time you start the machine up is somehow better than just doing it *once*, and ignoring it forever after? > udev is designed to minimize the number of devices you have to have in > /dev at any given time. No. That is NOT one of the design goals of udev. Read Greg K-H's position paper. I've read it, I just don't agree with it. You make it sound like there's some magical limit to what you can put in /dev that we're all terribly afraid of exceeding. > If you don't want that, then by all means, don't use it. I don't. But more and more, you end up with it. Not that I have any interest in the-crap-that-is-Gnome (I use a grand total of two Gnome-aware applications), but if you try to install a single Gnome application, you're stuck with a large percentage of the crap. How long is it going to be until some idiot maintainer creates a string of dependencies that leads to it being forced? Gee, a single application that can actually control how the box works on a fundamental level. Yes, Gnome is out of control. -- Marc Wilson | Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure msw@cox.net | or Rogue.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature