what is the deal with udev?

dtw · 2004-12-22 10:43:39

from devfs.conf latest PKG:

# 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.

in the wiki howto for udev it says you need 2.6 for udev - this is ok for me as i can and have moved to 2.6, but does this mean no more support for 2.4 or does 2.4 support udev and is the wiki wrong :? :?:

kakabaratruskia · 2004-12-22 13:53:38

2.4 is old. Someday it will be replaced (There are few distros that use 2.2, so I'm almost sure it will happen some day). That day devfs will not be necesary. Also, devfs appears in the kernel config as deprecated or something like that. It's probable that 2.8 (or 3.0) will not have it anymore.

z4ziggy · 2004-12-22 13:54:17

afaik 2.4 is already obsolete and only critical patches will be added. im guessing those who use 2.4 (slackware?) still, will be forced to get updated.

its time for the new kid on the block... 2.8

mico · 2004-12-22 14:25:40

Well, I use kernel 2.4. From a more conservative point of view, it is still more reliable, proven, well tested, etc, so I wouldn't say it is obsolete (yet). Same goes for devfs in comparison to udev. However, if I installed a new system for home workstation today, I'd probably go for 2.6 and udev, because I expect no significant development on 2.4 and especially not on devfs.

phrakture · 2004-12-22 15:24:58

mico wrote:

Well, I use kernel 2.4. From a more conservative point of view, it is still more reliable, proven, well tested, etc, so I wouldn't say it is obsolete (yet). Same goes for devfs in comparison to udev. However, if I installed a new system for home workstation today, I'd probably go for 2.6 and udev, because I expect no significant development on 2.4 and especially not on devfs.

arch is bleeding edge. period. 2.4 and devfs have been replaced... obsolete or not they shouldn't be used, by definition, with arch

i3839 · 2004-12-22 15:46:41

phrakture wrote:

arch is bleeding edge. period. 2.4 and devfs have been replaced... obsolete or not they shouldn't be used, by definition, with arch

Free software is about freedom and choice. Who or what are you to tell people what or what not to do with Arch?

If people like using a two years old Arch version: why not, if they want. If they want to use a 2.4 kernel because that's stable, and don't want a current 2.6 one: Why disallow them that? Sure, they can't use udev then, nor expect support, but that's all.

Arch is Arch. How Arch is used is not part of Arch, so crap like "Arch should be used this or that way" isn't nice.

z4ziggy · 2004-12-22 16:04:47

ofcourse, thats the freedom of linux world. u do what u want, even if the original creator didnt quite intended for that. however, with no disrespect to the 2.4 users, i read in one of the later linus-interviews (couldnt find it again) that soon (i think as soon as 2.8 will emerge) 2.4 will be obsolete and therefor only critical patches will be released.

phrakture · 2004-12-22 16:40:49

sigh, everyone has to start their own mini flame wars....

I'm not saying you can't use 2.4 - I'm saying that, due to the fact that arch is as up to date as they can be, if the new thing is to use udev/2.6 then arch will use udev/2.6... want to use something else? go right ahead.... hell you can ignore pacman and grab yum or something on your arch system if you want - go right ahead.

however, it's not "proper" in the arch world... it's scientific fact that the best path is the path of least resistance, and biological fact that organisms survive best with their environment, not against it. If you're going to live in the bleeding edge arch world, your best bet is to not resist...

resisting, in this case, is anything like the following: not keeping your system up to date (pacman -Syu), running kernel 2.2 or even 2.4, and many many more.....

i mean think about it this way - pacman supports one version at a time... it's inherant in the package management that you use the latest version... yet a kernel is somehow different?

I can understand the want for stability, but you're not really getting stability if you're running an updated system... hell look at debian stable

z4ziggy · 2004-12-22 17:12:10

phrakture wrote:

it's scientific fact that the best path is the path of least resistance, and biological fact that organisms survive best with their environment, not against it. If you're going to live in the bleeding edge arch world, your best bet is to not resist...

heil phrakture

i3839 · 2004-12-22 17:46:51

Then mind your wording next time, could help to not demand that people use Arch your way. Looked rather intimidating as it was, "You must use Arch my, erm, Arch's way". Sure, you may claim that your way is Arch's way, but what I'm trying to tell you that you should keep tools seperated from policy, laws, politics or whatever you'd name it. I'll ignore your pseudo scientific babbling if you don't mind. ("resistance if futile: you will be assimilated" ;-)

2.4 isn't obsolete, it's stable and in maintenance mode, to make it only more stable. (and I sure do run 2.6; I don't have a server requiring stability) Stable is totally different than something obsolete which is left in the corner to gather dust, something stable is kept up to date concerning security and stability. Devfs is obsolete, that it's also in 2.4 doesn't make the whole kernel obsolete...

You may call all forms of critique "mini flamewars" if you want, I don't care, I don't say anything personal, so I'll ignore such accusations.

I don't use Pacman to manage my kernel, am I an outcast now? ;-)

mico · 2004-12-22 19:49:04

phrakture: I don't see Arch as bleeding edge as you call it, for me arch is highly up-to-date. Bleeding edge means totally new, untested, unstable stuff, right? Like RC, beta, alpha versions or Arch's testing repository?

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.

phrakture · 2004-12-22 20:02:41

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"...

for the record, I never said 2.4 was obsolete

phrakture wrote:

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:

devfs.conf wrote:

# 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...

mico · 2004-12-22 20:27:26

phrakture wrote:

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.

LB06 · 2004-12-22 21:14:05

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.

sarah31 · 2004-12-23 01:39:22

LB06 wrote:

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.

dtw · 2004-12-23 06:55:47

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!

mico · 2004-12-23 12:05:13

As I've heard, devfs is not being developed and maintained anymore and nobody wants to take it over because the code is too messy for someone who would only now join development of devfs. That is why Arch is "phasing out its support for DevFS", because its future doesn't look bright. That does not mean something is wrong with devfs, just a note that sooner or later it will be wise or even necessary to replace it with udev.

i3839 · 2004-12-23 14:54:44

Partly true, interesting reads for all devfs fans:

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.)

sarah31 · 2004-12-23 16:27:34

dibblethewrecker wrote:

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.

xerxes2 · 2004-12-23 23:24:17

this is so old news, it was like the first thing i heard of when i installed arch in april, devfs is going to be taken out of kernel 2.6 series, if you want devfs you have to patch it or use 2.4,

Benedict_White · 2004-12-23 23:40:24

Actually I have been using Arch for a while and have not noticed the battle between Devfs and Udev.

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!

dtw · 2004-12-24 07:58:24

I think this thread, like so many but much more than others, emphasizes the reluctance of many posters to actually read the whole theard and thus make assumptions about what the thread is about! The number of people that have reiterated points made previously in the thread is frustrating.

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

aCoder · 2004-12-24 15:56:08

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.

dtw · 2004-12-26 07:44:46

thanks for that aCoder - sanity returns with the owner of Patch!

iphitus · 2004-12-26 13:44:29

aCoder wrote:

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

Arch Linux

#1 2004-12-22 10:43:39

what is the deal with udev?

#2 2004-12-22 13:53:38

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#3 2004-12-22 13:54:17

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#4 2004-12-22 14:25:40

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#5 2004-12-22 15:24:58

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#6 2004-12-22 15:46:41

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#7 2004-12-22 16:04:47

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#8 2004-12-22 16:40:49

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#9 2004-12-22 17:12:10

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#10 2004-12-22 17:46:51

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#11 2004-12-22 19:49:04

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#12 2004-12-22 20:02:41

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#13 2004-12-22 20:27:26

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#14 2004-12-22 21:14:05

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#15 2004-12-23 01:39:22

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#16 2004-12-23 06:55:47

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#17 2004-12-23 12:05:13

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#18 2004-12-23 14:54:44

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#19 2004-12-23 16:27:34

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#20 2004-12-23 23:24:17

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#21 2004-12-23 23:40:24

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#22 2004-12-24 07:58:24

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#23 2004-12-24 15:56:08

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#24 2004-12-26 07:44:46

Re: what is the deal with udev?

#25 2004-12-26 13:44:29

Re: what is the deal with udev?

Board footer