Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 23rd Aug 2008 15:31 UTC
"Once upon a time, a Linux distribution would be installed with a /dev directory fully populated with device files. Most of them represented hardware which would never be present on the installed system, but they needed to be there just in case. Toward the end of this era, it was not uncommon to find systems with around 20,000 special files in /dev, and the number continued to grow. This scheme was unwieldy at best, and the growing number of hotpluggable devices (and devices in general) threatened to make the whole structure collapse under its own weight. Something, clearly, needed to be done." The solution came in the form of udev, and udev uses rules to determine how it should handle devices. This allows distributors to tweak how they want devices to be handled. "Or maybe not. Udev maintainer Kay Sievers has recently let it be known that he would like all distributors to be using the set of udev rules shipped with the program itself." ComputerWorld dives into the situation.
Thread beginning with comment 327755
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: rules? we don't need no stinking rules?
by g2devi on Sun 24th Aug 2008 01:37
in reply to "RE: rules? we don't need no stinking rules?"
Member since:2005-07-09
RE[3]: rules? we don't need no stinking rules?
by Erunno on Sun 24th Aug 2008 11:14
in reply to "RE[2]: rules? we don't need no stinking rules?"
Member since:2007-06-22
Member since:
2005-11-11
How ironic. First you complain about rule enforcement. But when someone does something that you don't agree with, then you suddenly don't want the rule to be enforced?
As for "bloat": just how is this bloat? The DeviceKit author has two choices:
1. Write all the required functionality himself.
2. Use the functionality provided by a library, which is shared by many other applications and libraries.
(1) would logically result in *more* bloat because the developer ends up duplicating functionality that can already be found elsewhere.
And really, you call GObject/glib "bloat"? Dude, it's a library of less than 2 MB, and shared by a bazillian of Linux apps! The C standard library is bigger than this! You do know that the memory used by glib is shared all those apps, right?