| 1 |
On 11/17/2012 02:17 PM, Frank Peters wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
[trim /] |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> IMO, udev is the most twisted and unnecessary piece of cr** to have |
| 6 |
> ever been foisted upon the Linux world. It is apparently the brainchild |
| 7 |
> of the Freedesktop project, who are always busily creating more bloated |
| 8 |
> graphical extravaganzas in some misguided mission to outdo Microsoft. |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I agree, mostly. It certainly has caused my grief. |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
> I refuse to jump on that garish bandwagon. I have *real* computing |
| 13 |
> to accomplish. |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> For me, the appeal of Linux is that it allows the user to configure |
| 16 |
> and customize his system to suit his personal preferences, however bizarre |
| 17 |
> or unconventional those may be. The job of the Linux developers, therefore, |
| 18 |
> should be to maintain that state of openness and not to constrain |
| 19 |
> the user to any particular methodology. IOW, Linux is about *choice* |
| 20 |
> and not about conformity. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I also agree with your philosophy here. I'm not so sure that it applies |
| 23 |
to your situation. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
The kernel is the gold standard for backwards compatibility, as Linus |
| 26 |
regularly squashes functional regressions. Freedesktop does not agree, |
| 27 |
and probably does't have the manpower anyways. They develop new |
| 28 |
features to work with current systems, and video driver developers |
| 29 |
follow their lead. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
> My choice is simple: absolutely no udev (or any equivalent). |
| 32 |
> If others desire to have it, then that is their choice, but |
| 33 |
> I should never be forced to follow along. |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Well, you pointed out in your first mail that: |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> My system is updated daily |
| 38 |
^^^^^^^^^^^^^ |
| 39 |
Do you have some sort of filter on your daily updates that magically |
| 40 |
determines whether you'll like them? If you don't want to change, don't |
| 41 |
update. :-) |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
You weren't forced to update your Xorg or nvidia drivers, after all. |
| 44 |
You chose to do so probably because you like security fixes, other bug |
| 45 |
fixes and new features. |
| 46 |
|
| 47 |
Did you even try to reinstall the older versions of any of your suspect |
| 48 |
packages? |
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
> Hopefully, Gentoo has not lost this understanding and will strive |
| 51 |
> to maintain the wisdom. |
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
Gentoo doesn't control the software you are b**ching about, so I don't |
| 54 |
know what you expect to happen here. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Again, I applaud your philosophical position, but I *like* being able to |
| 57 |
unplug and replug keyboards and mice without worry. I'm not inclined to |
| 58 |
fork Xorg, so I've sucked it up and joined the udev/evdev world. I'll |
| 59 |
pick another hill to die on. |
| 60 |
|
| 61 |
I used to hate initramfs boot sequences, too. I was horrified when the |
| 62 |
linux raid maintainer declared that new features were only going to be |
| 63 |
supported in initramfs systems. When some disk hot-swap features I |
| 64 |
wanted pushed me that way, I didn't fork the kernel. I learned how |
| 65 |
early userspace worked and switched. Now I like it. You might find the |
| 66 |
same happens to you when you try evdev. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
HTH, |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
Phil |
Archives