1 |
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 12:07:44 +0000, Alan Mackenzie wrote: |
2 |
|
3 |
> Hello, Neil. |
4 |
> > In what way is it patronising? |
5 |
> |
6 |
> It talks down to people. It insinuates that the readers don't have the |
7 |
> wherewithal to appreciate that they have been deliberately hurt by |
8 |
> _somebody_ rather than something "just happening"; that the idea of an |
9 |
> abstraction "moving" is any sort of justification for anything. |
10 |
|
11 |
That only applies if you start from the position that this is a |
12 |
deliberate action against users, it's not, it's just the way the Linux |
13 |
ecosystem has developed. You call my attitude patronising, but from my |
14 |
viewpoint your attitude is paranoid. |
15 |
|
16 |
> Somebody, somewhere was the first person to decide to put early boot |
17 |
> software into /usr. Others may have followed him, sooner or later, but |
18 |
> there was a single person (or perhaps a conspiracy) that did this first. |
19 |
|
20 |
Not necessarily. It most likely happened that it happened the other way |
21 |
round, that and increasing amount of software already in /usr became |
22 |
important during early boot. |
23 |
|
24 |
> Who? There was no public discussion of this momentous change, not that |
25 |
> I'm aware of. Why? |
26 |
|
27 |
It was discussed to death on this list several times, going back at |
28 |
least a year. |
29 |
|
30 |
> > I think that is entirely the right time to learn of it. If you want to |
31 |
> > know about the devs' discussions before reaching the decision, you |
32 |
> > should read gentoo-dev. Until then it was a dev issue, now it is being |
33 |
> > implemented it is a user issue. |
34 |
> |
35 |
> Please be aware the change I was talking about was the decision to break |
36 |
> separate /usr, not the Gentoo devs' reaction to this breakage. Why did |
37 |
> we only become aware of the decision to break separate /usr after it was |
38 |
> too late to do anything about it? How could such a thing happen, if not |
39 |
> through conspiracy? |
40 |
|
41 |
Ignorance? Not paying attention? This comes as no surprise to those that |
42 |
read this list. Users of other distros aren't even affected by it as they |
43 |
have been using initramfs/initrds for many years. |
44 |
|
45 |
> > I disagree, but then I have actually tried doing it. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> I tried, and gave up after a couple of hours. It was a challenge, but |
48 |
> I've grown out of being fascinated by challenges for their own sake. |
49 |
> Then I installed dracut, only to find it won't work on my system. I |
50 |
> haven't tried genkernel. In the end, with regrets, I took /usr out of |
51 |
> my LVM area and put it into a new partition which became the root |
52 |
> partition. |
53 |
|
54 |
Why didn't you try genkernel? That has been creating Gentoo initrds for |
55 |
longer than I have been using Gentoo. But things would be easier if the |
56 |
kernel supported LVM. |
57 |
|
58 |
> > This whole discussion reminds me of a conversation I had with a senior |
59 |
> > SUSE engineer earlier this year, someone of a similar age to myself. |
60 |
> > His comment was along the lines of "I remember when Linux users wanted |
61 |
> > the latest bleeding edge, now they complain every time something |
62 |
> > changes". |
63 |
> |
64 |
> The particular change is not progress, it's not a new feature, it's not |
65 |
> something useful for users. It's pure breakage for no good reason. If |
66 |
> this is what "bleeding edge" now means, no surprise that people complain |
67 |
> about it. |
68 |
|
69 |
The comment wasn't about early boot, I think we were talking abut Unity |
70 |
at the time, but it seems relevant. Now Unity fits in with your |
71 |
arguments, a single organisation developed it and sprang t upon their |
72 |
users without warning. The same is not true of the usr/initramfs |
73 |
situation. |
74 |
|
75 |
|
76 |
-- |
77 |
Neil Bothwick |
78 |
|
79 |
Would a fly without wings be called a walk? |