| 1 |
On 2011-09-15 16:57, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as |
| 4 |
> Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of |
| 5 |
> possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not. |
| 6 |
> KISS. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unix_philosophy |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
I can especially point out: |
| 11 |
Rule of Modularity |
| 12 |
Rule of Parsimony |
| 13 |
Rule of Diversity |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
> It's a lot like the CUPS/lprng situation we discussed before. CUPS can |
| 16 |
> do anything that lprng does, so it makes no sense to keep support for |
| 17 |
> lprng. It's the same: with an initramfs you will be able to do |
| 18 |
> anything, so it will make no sense to keep supporting initramfs-less |
| 19 |
> systems. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
"... one ring to rule them all..." |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Best regards |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Peter K |
Archives