| 1 |
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 6:18 PM antlists <antlists@××××××××××××.uk> wrote: |
| 2 |
[...] |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> What you're missing, is that this code IS NOT USED. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> The OP wants to delete a load of code from his system precisely to |
| 7 |
> ELIMINATE vulnerabilities. If the code ain't there, it don't need fixing. |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
Where do you get that impression from? The OP needs handling keyboard and |
| 11 |
mouse (as per his first email), and to do that in Linux these days, you |
| 12 |
basically need udev, because xf86-input-mouse and xf86-input-keyboard are |
| 13 |
going the way of the dodo. |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
Where does the "ELIMINATE vulnerabilities" come from? The OP is just |
| 16 |
complaining that to use keyboard and mouse, now he needs udev. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
My point is that it's not his call; it's the call of the developers of the |
| 19 |
software that he decided to use. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
> Yes I take your point, but bloat is bloat, and bloat is a liability. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
There is no bloat; the developers *need* to handle the dynamic hardware |
| 26 |
case *and* the static hardware case. With udev, they handle both; otherwise |
| 27 |
there would be two code routes: one for static and another for dynamic |
| 28 |
hardware. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
THAT would be bloat; using udev solves all the cases and bloat is averted. |
| 31 |
Is exactly the contrary of what you are saying. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
Regards. |
| 34 |
-- |
| 35 |
Dr. Canek Peláez Valdés |
| 36 |
Profesor de Carrera Asociado C |
| 37 |
Departamento de Matemáticas |
| 38 |
Facultad de Ciencias |
| 39 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |
Archives