On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 09:21:03AM -0800, Marc Wilson wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 09:38:35AM -0700, John W. M. Stevens wrote: > > <deleted silly udev rationales> I, for one, can see no rationale for udev in it's present form. It works, is not a rationale. But so long as it remains optional, I don't really care, which was exactly my attitude about devfs. > And yet, through all of this, no one has yet bothered to read the udev FAQ. Sorry, I've read it several times. > Not that I like udev, or care whether or not anyone uses it or not, but the > depths of ignorance are appalling. What do you expect with such a minimal and political FAQ? The true story can only be discovered by reading the kernel mailing list. Like watching sausage being made, I wouldn't recommend such to the delicate of stomach. John S.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature