1 |
Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:26:12 -0400 as excerpted: |
2 |
|
3 |
> My concern with something like dropping udev is that it would make us |
4 |
> different from every other desktop distro out there. I'm not aware of |
5 |
> any distro packaging Gnome/KDE without udev. Not having Redhat's |
6 |
> billions to me is a good reason to try to do things the same way that |
7 |
> Redhat does them - so that we're not re-inventing the wheel. |
8 |
|
9 |
I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it looks, or next, we'd certainly |
10 |
be switching to binary-by-default. |
11 |
|
12 |
However, you bring up a good point that I've seen repeated in one way or |
13 |
another in many discussions about Linux distros and how the compare and |
14 |
differ, and in particular, what makes the Linux ecosystem different from |
15 |
the Unix ecosystem before it, which ultimately so differentiated that |
16 |
each brand was effectively its own OS (as can still be seen in the |
17 |
various BSDs today, to some degree, as well as in the surviving |
18 |
commercial Unixen, despite POSIX and etc.). |
19 |
|
20 |
The point as I've seen it repeatedly made, is that what tends to keep the |
21 |
various Linuxen compatible is that while each distro does choose its own |
22 |
points of differentiation and does indeed differ in those points from |
23 |
most others, due to the forces of free/libre and open source, if one ends |
24 |
up really better, the others all adapt pretty much the same thing, *AND* |
25 |
perhaps more importantly, with f/l/os... |
26 |
|
27 |
--> Each point of difference requires a significant |
28 |
--> investment of time and energy from a distro's devs |
29 |
--> that they could otherwise avoid. |
30 |
|
31 |
That economy of efficiency forces distros to choose the points of |
32 |
distinction they REALLY value, and work on them, while in other areas, |
33 |
it's much more efficient to just go with the mainline flow, because being |
34 |
different requires WORK, both to achieve, and to maintain, especially at |
35 |
FLOSS development speed. |
36 |
|
37 |
(Of course, a subpoint can be mentioned as well, that in an all-volunteer |
38 |
community distro such as gentoo, to a rather large degree, the amount of |
39 |
resources the distro chooses to devote to any potential point of |
40 |
differentiation, depends on what individual developers choose to push as |
41 |
their own personal projects, and the degree to which they can motivate |
42 |
other devs and non-dev community volunteers to work with them toward that |
43 |
goal.) |
44 |
|
45 |
Thus, the point I'd make and that I believe you were making is not that |
46 |
Gentoo can't be different, or we'd obviously be doing a binary distro |
47 |
like everyone else, but that we pick the differences which we value |
48 |
enough to develop and maintain, and while the customization that building |
49 |
from source allows is one of them, gentoo's not known as a "no-udev" |
50 |
distro now, and making it so by default is in practice going to cost |
51 |
resources that we simply don't have, so it's extremely unlikely to happen. |
52 |
|
53 |
But gentoo /does/ value the ability of the administrator to make that |
54 |
sort of choice for themselves, and gentoo would not be gentoo, if it |
55 |
didn't try to preserve that choice where possible given development |
56 |
resource constraints, because that is one of the points of |
57 |
differentiation that gentoo has always focused on. Individual apps and |
58 |
indeed, whole desktop environments, may require udev, but that doesn't |
59 |
mean the gentoo machine admin isn't free to choose alternatives that |
60 |
don't require it. |
61 |
|
62 |
-- |
63 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
64 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
65 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |