My final point, which i guess is really a rhetorical question, is how can devfs be phased out if 2.4 is not also phased out, as 2.4 cannot survive without it?
Since you meant that as a rhetorical question, and this thread seems to be all about ignoring parts of everyone else's posts, and since I seem to have missed out on most of the discussion, I'm going to provide questionable answer!
So, how can we phase out devfs without ditching 2.4? We can't! Really, 2.4 should be dropped from current now. Likewise, we should be rid of devfs. If you run Arch on a critical system that requires the kind of added stability you may or may not find in the 2.4 tree, you ought to know enough to setup the kernel yourself. If you don't, your added stability isn't there. A PC is only as stable as its users.
Careful, there are still pieces of hardware out there which dont work in 2.6. My laptop would have random lockups at one stage earlier this year under 2.6, yet not under 2.4, it was an acpi bug. I would say, remove devfs and 2.4, when devfs is removed from the 2.6 kernel.
iphitus
]]>My final point, which i guess is really a rhetorical question, is how can devfs be phased out if 2.4 is not also phased out, as 2.4 cannot survive without it?
Since you meant that as a rhetorical question, and this thread seems to be all about ignoring parts of everyone else's posts, and since I seem to have missed out on most of the discussion, I'm going to provide questionable answer!
So, how can we phase out devfs without ditching 2.4? We can't! Really, 2.4 should be dropped from current now. Likewise, we should be rid of devfs. If you run Arch on a critical system that requires the kind of added stability you may or may not find in the 2.4 tree, you ought to know enough to setup the kernel yourself. If you don't, your added stability isn't there. A PC is only as stable as its users.
]]>At no point have i expressed any disatisfaction about the state of udev or devfs.
My final point, which i guess is really a rhetorical question, is how can devfs be phased out if 2.4 is not also phased out, as 2.4 cannot survive without it?
As long as there's a kernel(24) package you'll be able to use devfsd, so I don't think you need to worry about that.
that statement sums it up - it's a chicken or the egg situation, which ever one goes the other will inevitably follow
]]>I have always been using the Arch supplied kernel and all worked well in both 2.6.x.
I have not used 2.4 in Arch.
That said I don't generaly poke that far.
I have now trying to get dvb to work, and having built a kernel on 2.6.10-rc3 i decided (my choice) to go entierly Udev as that is the way it is going.
Frankly if you are working on Arch kernels you are using both.
(hashed together in a backwards compatibility sort of way) even at 2.6.9.
If you need Devfs don't upgrade your kernel.
Otherwise see if you can live without it.
I could not live without a backup grub line to a kernel I now works on my development machine and I would recomend it to anyone.
Bottom line is though, Arch is bleeding edge, but more importantly it is what you make of it.
If you want 2.4, have it and love it. If you want 2,6 the same. The same applies to Devfs and udev.
Arch is great, it lets the user choose!
]]>ummmm - thanks for your responses but no-one actually answered the question directly.
i gather 2.4 cannot use udev. If Arch is still to provide a 2.4 PKG - which appears it may to satisfy those using servers etc then in what way will it be phasing out devfs? this makes no sense. what i wanted to ask is IS Arch phasing at 2.4, which the statement about devfs implies.
I just also wanted to add that I also see Arch as more of a hobby than "enterprise" distro - but I would like to think that the main developers would not go so far as to limit our choice of the fundamental component of the OS. True they don't offer 2.2, but if 2.4 is considered stable rather than obsolete then the case for not supporting it is not so strong. For example, the repo version of fluxbox is still "stable" which is considered obsolete by the developers themselves, let alone the community. But will the devel version be moved to extra? who fscking knows!
six of one, half dozen of the other!
Good post.
Though I don't even use linux anymore (or a PCs for that matter) I would hope that Arch would leave the 2.4 kernels in their package sets for some time. My understanding is that the 2.6 kernel still cannot handle all the devices and stuff that the 2.4 kernel can.
The 2.4 kernels are more stable, imo, for running a server. That being said i had no real issues with the 2.6 kernels. I do find the management of releases to be alot more sloppy on them though.
As long as the 2.4 kernel is available i think support for devfs should exist. If they are phasing devfs out then I assume the 2.4 kernel is due for removal as a kernel choice for arch.
]]>http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/11/10/281
http://lkml.org/lkml/2004/11/8/90
Udev can't be used with 2.4 because udev requires sysfs, which doesn't exist in 2.4.
The default choice of a distro doesn't lessen your choices, in the worst case it's slightly more work to do it yourself. (I use static /dev as I don't use hotpluggable stuff, and have udev managing my /udev dir, just for observation.)
]]>i gather 2.4 cannot use udev. If Arch is still to provide a 2.4 PKG - which appears it may to satisfy those using servers etc then in what way will it be phasing out devfs? this makes no sense. what i wanted to ask is IS Arch phasing at 2.4, which the statement about devfs implies.
I just also wanted to add that I also see Arch as more of a hobby than "enterprise" distro - but I would like to think that the main developers would not go so far as to limit our choice of the fundamental component of the OS. True they don't offer 2.2, but if 2.4 is considered stable rather than obsolete then the case for not supporting it is not so strong. For example, the repo version of fluxbox is still "stable" which is considered obsolete by the developers themselves, let alone the community. But will the devel version be moved to extra? who fscking knows!
six of one, half dozen of the other!
]]>As long as there's a kernel(24) package you'll be able to use devfsd, so I don't think you need to worry about that.
Exactly. There are no plans that i know of to have udev in the 2.4 kernel.
As for Arch being bleeding edge .... to some yes to some no.
Devfs will never be obsolete as long as there is a 2.4 kernel package. As far as I am concerned I found Devfs far earier to manage and I much preferred tha naming conventions. Its device support was and still is far more wide ranging, etc. But it has basically been forced out to be replaced with "the new catch phrase" which is basically Devfs with some changes and designed by someone who think they know better.
When I finished using Linux I was using Udev and kernel 2.6 but that was only because that was the way things were going and not because i like Udev or the 2.6 kernel. Until I switched over I was using Devfs without difficulty. despite all the changes and upgrades of the kernel and Udev Devfs and myself were just a better fit.
think what you like prakture but listening to your immature whining doesn't change the fact that some people prefer older more proven software and they will use it until they can't anymore. until then there is nothing you can do about it but banter on like you know all. thankfully arch still allows for people to choose which route they want to go. I was having no problem using devfs when I finished off with linux.
]]>from http://www.archlinux.org/about.php
We try to stay fairly bleeding edge, and typically have the latest stable versions of software.
"bleeding edge" doesn't mean "download everything from CVS and compile it, who cares if it works, it's new"...
Sorry for that, I thought it does mean something like that, maybe not CVS, but at least RC or beta.
About the kernel 2.4 and devfs - I didn't say I'll use them forever, I will upgrade in the near future, just not now, because there is no urgent need to upgrade. In fact, I've always disliked devfs for its naming scheme. As I already said in the first post:
if I installed a new system for home workstation today, I'd probably go for 2.6 and udev.
We try to stay fairly bleeding edge, and typically have the latest stable versions of software.
"bleeding edge" doesn't mean "download everything from CVS and compile it, who cares if it works, it's new"...
for the record, I never said 2.4 was obsolete
2.4 and devfs have been replaced... obsolete or not
I guess my point is this: arch has been defined by many as a "hobby distro" - that is to say, it's not meant to run your "dot com" or do computations for your thesis on the Reimann zeta function... if you want something specific, go with a special purpose distro... try debian stable (woody?)...
It's a far better choice to find a distro which fits what *you* want rather than finding a disto and trying to mold it into what you want. The fact of the matter is that devfs is dying in arch:
# PLEASE NOTE: Arch Linux is phasing out its support for DevFS. You should
# be moving to uDev sometime in the near future, as that's
# where the rest of us are going.
If you want to use devfs, it's going to be complicated. Why go through the hassle? Why not go grab debian stable and run a 2.2 kernel with devfs... it's all there by default... easy as pie...
]]>I also want stability, not just all the newest stuff. If openoffice or gqview or a text editor crashes, it's usually no big deal, so I frequently upgrade the system to get the newest stuff. But I do want the system to stay up and running and because the kernel is the most important part of it, I just figured I'll wait some more time before switching to 2.6, just in case. I've been running 2.4 with Arch for a year now and it only crashed when I had some problems with hardware and overheating. Otherwise the system works great.
If 2.4 shouldn't be used with Arch, the maintainers would just keep one kernel package and when 2.6.0 was released they would replace 2.4 with 2.6.0 in the package "kernel". Fortunately, they splitted the kernel package into 2 separate packages: kernel24 and kernel26 and everyone can choose what he or she wants.
About devfs: it may be called obsolete by many of you, but it works, it is stable, well tested and reliable. The latest Freebsd still uses it. I think udev is still more suited for most linux users because of the naming scheme and brighter future, but I can't use it with 2.4. Still, no problem. Since I got all devices already configured, I don't even notice I use devfs.