Re: [gentoo-amd64] Keyboard Stops Working Under X

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Sat, Nov 17, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Frank Peters <frank.peters@×××××××.net> wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2012 23:13:30 -0600
> Steven Lembark <lembark@×××××××.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Q: What do you need the custom xconfig for?
>>
>> You might find that life is easier if you remove
>> the xorg.conf, switch to evdev as the input,
>>
>
> [The following is only an innocent spiel, and is not intended
> to be in any way unfriendly.]

I didn't find it unfriendly; on the contrary, quite informative.

> Make life easier?  Nothing could be further from the truth.
>
> After doing some research into making the supposedly simple change
> of switching to evdev, I find that I am required to:
>
> 1) Reconfigure the kernel to include many things, such as hotplug,
> which I do not want or need.
>
> 2) Install and configure udev, which is a horrendous and totally
> unwarranted and needless nightmare.
>
> 3) Trash my established (and simple) /dev tree
>
> 4) Get rid of module-init-tools
>
> 5) Many other ridiculous and needless tasks that are associated with all
> of the above.
>
> And for what?  Just so that I can joyously sit back and watch X come
> to life without a configuration file?  No thank you.  I'll pass.
>
> The purpose of the edev driver, as stated in the Gentoo manual, is
> only this:
>
> "The evdev driver configures your input devices, as needed, using HAL or udev.
> This allows for the X server to automatically detect the keyboard and mouse
> you're using for your input devices, and removes the need to specify your
> devices in xorg.conf."
>
> I am so sorry, but I remain thoroughly unimpressed.  I know exactly
> what is connected to my machine.  I do not require some convoluted
> and barely workable user-space software scheme to figure it out for me.

I do agree that if you "know exactly what is connected" to your
machine (and this never changes), udev (or mdev, or devfs for that
matter) is basically useless. Just take in mind that the majority of
users connect and disconnect stuff from their computers/tablets/phones
all the time (USB webcams, joysticks, scanners, printers; bluetooth
headphones, keyboards, phones; eSATA disks), and therefore the
developers tend to care more about that use case, which is the general
one and it contains the static one.

> What disturbs me the most, however, is this business about udev.
>
> IMO, udev is the most twisted and unnecessary piece of cr** to have
> ever been foisted upon the Linux world.  It is apparently the brainchild
> of the Freedesktop project, who are always busily creating more bloated
> graphical extravaganzas in some misguided mission to outdo Microsoft.

Actually, udev was started by kernel developer Greg Kroah-Hartman.

> I refuse to jump on that garish bandwagon.  I have *real* computing
> to accomplish.

All of us (I would think) have "real" computing to accomplish. That's
why many of us prefer not to worry about xorg.conf (or any other
configuration file) every time we change keyboard or mouse.

> For me, the appeal of Linux is that it allows the user to configure
> and customize his system to suit his personal preferences, however bizarre
> or unconventional those may be.

As you say, for you. For many others the appeal is different; either
because is free (as in libre), or because it gets the job done, or
because it's faster. Customization is a completely valid reason to use
Linux; it's just not the only one.

>  The job of the Linux developers, therefore,
> should be to maintain that state of openness and not to constrain
> the user to any particular methodology.

With this I strongly disagree. The "job" of the developers is the one
they are being paid for, if they are being paid; and if not, their
"job" is to do whatever the hell they want to. If you are an employer
you have the right to *demand* a developer who is your employee
whatever you want. If you are just a user (like myself), you do not
have the right to *demand* anything. You can of course express your
opinion, but the devs have no obligation whatsoever to even listening
to it. If you don't like the direction of an open source project, you
have (now and forever) the freedom to choose another project, fork the
project to take it in the direction you want to (as some Gentoo devs
have recently decided to do with udev), or start contributing to the
project so it goes in the direction you believe is the correct one.

But if you are not actually writing the code or paying someone else to
do it, you don't get to tell anyone what the job of a developer is. Or
more precisely, you can say it, just don't expect the developers to
actually caring about what you (or I) have to say. They *could* care,
of course; they are just not *obligated* to.

>  IOW, Linux is about *choice*
> and not about conformity.

Nobody has done anything to your freedom to choose whatever you want.
Just don't expect that someone else will do the work to maintain the
xf86-input-keyboard and xf86-input-mouse drivers; and don't expect the
X.org developers to care about them if they believe that
xf86-input-evdev is the correct answer because it works in the general
case, and they don't mind that it needs udev.

> My choice is simple: absolutely no udev (or any equivalent).
> If others desire to have it, then that is their choice, but
> I should never be forced to follow along.

Nobody is forcing anything on you (how could anyone do that?) But
someone has to maintain the code for old drivers to keep working in
new X.org releases and new kernels. Interfaces and libraries change,
and keeping up old code is work that usually nobody wants to do,
specially if it only caters to a small subset of the intended users.
You don't want to use evdev since it requires udev? That's fine; just
don't expect that someone else is going to maintain it for you.

> Hopefully, Gentoo has not lost this understanding and will strive
> to maintain the wisdom.

What wisdom?

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México