| 1 |
On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: |
| 3 |
>> |
| 4 |
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Pandu Poluan<pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> |
| 6 |
>>> On Jan 4, 2012 6:19 AM, "Dale"<rdalek1967@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 7 |
>>>> |
| 8 |
>>>> Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 9 |
>>>>> |
| 10 |
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:31:20 +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: |
| 11 |
>>>>> |
| 12 |
>>>>>> I know. It's the "I want to get the rid of initramfs" thing that looks |
| 13 |
>>>>>> crazy to me. |
| 14 |
>>>>> |
| 15 |
>>>>> No one is saying they want to get rid of the initramfs, because they |
| 16 |
>>>>> are |
| 17 |
>>>>> not using one. What people object to is being forced to start using |
| 18 |
>>>>> one. |
| 19 |
>>>>> |
| 20 |
>>>>> |
| 21 |
>>>> You got that right. I have not used one since I started using Gentoo. |
| 22 |
>>>> Now, I may very well have to start. I hope mdev gets to a point where |
| 23 |
>>>> it |
| 24 |
>>>> works really well on desktop systems. |
| 25 |
>>>> |
| 26 |
>>> You were there in the thread linked by Walt, udev is just one of several |
| 27 |
>>> packages maintained by RH people that *demands* /usr to be mounted during |
| 28 |
>>> boot. |
| 29 |
>>> |
| 30 |
>>> And the RH devels insistence to deprecate /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin... |
| 31 |
>>> |
| 32 |
>>> I'm getting depressed. One battle might be won (mdev vs udev), but |
| 33 |
>>> there's |
| 34 |
>>> still a war against the RH braindeadness... |
| 35 |
>> |
| 36 |
>> I'm sorry to tell you this, but (as admirable as it could be), the |
| 37 |
>> mdev hack to use it instead of udev is not a "victory". We are not at |
| 38 |
>> war, in the first place; and in the second place, the mdev hack would |
| 39 |
>> be used by a handful of guys bent on refusing a change that, like it |
| 40 |
>> or not, would in the end come. Like Gentoo on FreeBSD, it would be a |
| 41 |
>> nice hack, maybe even worthy of applause, but in the end irrelevant: a |
| 42 |
>> toy. A cute, entertaining (and, in a few cases, useful) toy. But a toy |
| 43 |
>> nonetheless. |
| 44 |
>> |
| 45 |
>> The heavy development will continue to happen in udev, and the devices |
| 46 |
>> that will dominate in the future (touchscreens, bluetooth input and |
| 47 |
>> audio devices, hardware that has a highly dynamic change rate) will |
| 48 |
>> only be supported by udev. The mdev hack will be useful maybe to only |
| 49 |
>> some guys, and even then udev would be able to do the same (and more). |
| 50 |
>> |
| 51 |
>> The use of an initramfs (or, alternatively, having /usr in the same |
| 52 |
>> partition as /), and maybe the move of /bin to /usr/bin and /lib to |
| 53 |
>> /usr/lib will be made, and in the future most of the interesting |
| 54 |
>> software will simply assume that this is how a system works. Maybe we |
| 55 |
>> will even stop to use the ridiculous short directory names from the |
| 56 |
>> stone age, and we will start using sensible names: |
| 57 |
>> |
| 58 |
>> /usr -> /System |
| 59 |
>> /etc -> /Config |
| 60 |
>> /var -> /Variable |
| 61 |
>> |
| 62 |
>> I feel a deep respect for the people working on making mdev a |
| 63 |
>> "replacement" of udev; it is not an easy task (even if it only works |
| 64 |
>> for a really small subset of the use cases udev covers), and something |
| 65 |
>> that I certainly would never do. But their hack (as beautiful as it |
| 66 |
>> may be) will never be used by the majority of Linux users, and |
| 67 |
>> probably not even by the majority of Gentoo users (if my |
| 68 |
>> interpretation of the discussion on gentoo-dev is correct). And with |
| 69 |
>> the pass of time it will be harder and harder to keep the hack working |
| 70 |
>> with new hardware, new software, and new use cases. |
| 71 |
>> |
| 72 |
>> But, hey, this is FOSS; you guys go nuts hacking in whatever feature |
| 73 |
>> (or anti-feature) you like. As in the case of this mdev hack, it may |
| 74 |
>> even be included in the Gentoo ebuilds. Just don't expect it to be |
| 75 |
>> supported forever, don't expect it to support general-purpose setups, |
| 76 |
>> and certainly don't call it "a victory". It's just the same history as |
| 77 |
>> always: the people writing the code are the ones calling the shots. |
| 78 |
>> |
| 79 |
>> Regards. |
| 80 |
> |
| 81 |
> |
| 82 |
> I wonder how many times this has been said about other software that is now |
| 83 |
> in wide spread use. Keep in mind, some people think Gentoo is dying and has |
| 84 |
> been dying for YEARS. That's not just one package but a whole distro. |
| 85 |
|
| 86 |
Netcraft confirms it? |
| 87 |
|
| 88 |
> |
| 89 |
> Will mdev replace udev, I dunno. Thing is, you don't know that it won't |
| 90 |
> either. Someone could come along and help Walter and make it better than |
| 91 |
> udev ever dreamed of being. |
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
It's not that mdev will be better than udev, or udev better than mdev, |
| 94 |
it's that they'll be able to service different roles very effectively. |
| 95 |
|
| 96 |
> I just have to mention hal too. Lots of people thought that was the new |
| 97 |
> sliced bread and frozen pizza. It sure did fall hard tho. |
| 98 |
|
| 99 |
For a fair number of use cases, udev works pretty well. It's been |
| 100 |
around for far longer, too. |
| 101 |
|
| 102 |
> As I said about my ex once, time tells. Sometimes, time is the only thing |
| 103 |
> that does tell too. Reminds me of wine although I don't drink it. |
| 104 |
|
| 105 |
I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look at udev and mdev as winner |
| 106 |
or loser. I'm not trying to be even-handed or fair in this; I just |
| 107 |
think they service different needs. |
| 108 |
|
| 109 |
Currently, the only advantage I see for udev in a server is the |
| 110 |
ability to give network interfaces meaningful names... |
| 111 |
|
| 112 |
-- |
| 113 |
:wq |
Archives