| 1 |
+1, been using eudev since starting with gentoo, in fact, it was one of |
| 2 |
the prime motivators of trying out gentoo [1]. |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
[1]: using gentoo for about a year now and primary reason for me and |
| 5 |
about 2 colleagues who switched with me was "a linux distro with enough |
| 6 |
flexibility to completely avoid |
| 7 |
systemd/logind/polkit/policykit/networkmanager/modemmanager at |
| 8 |
./configure level". The resulting system is extremely simple |
| 9 |
conceptually, with a low process count. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
On 02/09/16 18:18, Brian Dolbec wrote: |
| 13 |
> On Tue, 9 Feb 2016 08:44:03 -0500 |
| 14 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
>> I'll admit this has been a bit of an emotional thread for me. I think |
| 17 |
>> my frustration comes from the fact that it seems like the whole reason |
| 18 |
>> that eudev exists is because people really strongly believe that |
| 19 |
>> systemd isn't the right way to go, and yet those same people don't |
| 20 |
>> seem to realize that others might feel just as strongly that eudev |
| 21 |
>> isn't the right way to go. |
| 22 |
>> |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
> I started the replies with a simple +1, and that I had switched to |
| 25 |
> eudev... No, "Down with the evil systemd.borg" comments |
| 26 |
> |
| 27 |
> As one of the few huge threads that I have been reading. It is you |
| 28 |
> that has been taking this thread more in the direction of something |
| 29 |
> akin to a preacher shouting we're all going to burn in hell for even |
| 30 |
> considering switching the default. While you were obviously more |
| 31 |
> emotional, Anthony was very calmly, and clearly refuting many of your |
| 32 |
> statements. |
| 33 |
> |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
>> Surely anybody suggesting switching to eudev as the default |
| 36 |
>> virtual/udev provider had to have realized that this would create a |
| 37 |
>> huge controversy. |
| 38 |
>> |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> BUT WHY DOES it have to be!!!!! |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> Why can't we as a group simply respond to something like this with a |
| 43 |
> simple +1, -1 and a few pros/cons |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Why must it become yet another shouting match. And I'm sorry to have to |
| 46 |
> tell you this, but you have been leading the charge in that direction. |
| 47 |
> |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
>> Even if standalone udev is a dead-end (something that is speculation |
| 50 |
>> at this point), it isn't like the code that exists today will suddenly |
| 51 |
>> stop working. Worst case we just have to change the default at a |
| 52 |
>> later point in time. |
| 53 |
>> |
| 54 |
>> Even just kicking the can down the road has a lot of advantages: |
| 55 |
>> 1. Everything works fine today. |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> yes |
| 58 |
> |
| 59 |
>> 2. We don't know for sure that it will ever stop working. |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> no, we don't |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
>> 3. Deferring a decision means we don't have to wage a huge battle |
| 64 |
>> over which way the decision ought to go. |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> As I pointed out above, you seem to be leading the battle charge. |
| 67 |
> |
| 68 |
> Why couldn't you have simply replied "-1 I use systemd like most other |
| 69 |
> distros" and "It works for me as is" and leave it at that. |
| 70 |
> |
| 71 |
>> 4. If we do have to make a decision in the future, we'll have more |
| 72 |
>> information to act on. |
| 73 |
>> |
| 74 |
> |
| 75 |
> put off till tomorrow what you can avoid doing today... tsk, tsk, tsk |
| 76 |
> |
| 77 |
> IT IS A SIMPLE POLL of the possibility of switching the default VIRTUAL |
| 78 |
> we were suppose to be talking about/voting on!!!! |
| 79 |
> |
| 80 |
> |
| 81 |
> |
| 82 |
> Sorry everyone for a little shouting of my own. |
| 83 |
> |
Archives