On 2/8/16 10:09 PM, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Mon, Feb 8, 2016 at 7:58 PM, Anthony G. Basile <bluen...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >> what does in-house tool mean? i'm a gentoo developer but i also work >> on an upstream project (eudev) that 14 distros use. >> >> some of the criticism given here are my concerns as well and i've >> spoken with the various distros --- slack, parted magic, puppy. they >> get what's going on and they still see eudev is the best way forward >> for now. it may not be in the future, but neither will a udev >> extracted from a compiled full systemd codebase. > > How many of those 14 distros have more than 14 users?
may i forward that to them? i'm sure they'll appreciate your comment. anyhow, your rhetorical question has speculation as its basis. do you have numbers of users? as i write this, gentoo is number 44 in distrowatch.com below slackware at 22 and puppy at 15. can you produce reliable numbers? gentoo is very unpopular as a distro. however, it excels as a meta distro. if you marginalize its special features, you take away all its charm. > > Look, I get it, some people don't like systemd. That's fine. > However, you have to realize at this point that a non-systemd > configuration is anything but mainstream. neither is a system based on musl or uclibc, but if you need an embedded system, then these are "mainstream". similarly hardened is not "mainstream" and yet there are many companies that depend on it. the notion of "mainstream" is relative and you're taking a particular vantage point. anyhow, the argument in the subject is the order of udev and eudev in the virtual, not systemd vs eudev. There will always be a > "poppyseed linux" whose purpose in life seems to be to preserve linux > without sysfs or some other obscure practice. no, more like special uses. you're framing the issue based on your notion of "mainstream" I just think that > Gentoo should offer the choice to do those things, but have a more > mainstream set of defaults. i don't care about the order of the virtual, that was other people's issues. i'm responding to bad arguments. > >> >> it needs to be in the new stage4s to make a bootable system. imo a >> stage4 should be bootable modulo a kernel. >> > > Sure, a stage4 based on systemd makes a lot of sense. not for embedded and the things i work on. these have users. > > I think that offering an eudev-based distro as a default just doesn't > make sense in 2016. because you have a limited sense of usefulness > > When these sorts of debates come up it seems like: > 1. People express their preference. no, its not a preference. its the right tool for the right job. when something needs systemd, you use that, when something needs eudev you use that. > 2. People get offended when others express a different preference. all the vitriolic attacks i get about eudev come from the gentoo community. outside of this community i get praise. > 3. People say "it's just a default" as if that is a reason that > others shouldn't object to their own preference. the arguments based on "preference" and "mainstream" are fallacious. -- Anthony G. Basile, Ph.D. Gentoo Linux Developer [Hardened] E-Mail : bluen...@gentoo.org GnuPG FP : 1FED FAD9 D82C 52A5 3BAB DC79 9384 FA6E F52D 4BBA GnuPG ID : F52D4BBA
