| 1 |
On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <caneko@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as |
| 3 |
> Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of |
| 4 |
> possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not. |
| 5 |
> KISS. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
If you want KISS by imposing rules on the many to make |
| 8 |
responsibilities fewer for the few, build a walled garden. Building a |
| 9 |
safe playground has never been what Linux has been about, or what it |
| 10 |
has been advocated or marketed as, in the ten or so years I've been |
| 11 |
using it. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> It's a lot like the CUPS/lprng situation we discussed before. CUPS can |
| 15 |
> do anything that lprng does, so it makes no sense to keep support for |
| 16 |
> lprng. It's the same: with an initramfs you will be able to do |
| 17 |
> anything, so it will make no sense to keep supporting initramfs-less |
| 18 |
> systems. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
While I came down on the CUPS side of that argument, udev is a very |
| 21 |
different beast. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
:wq |
Archives