On Thu, Sep 15, 2011 at 10:57 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as > Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of > possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not. > KISS.
If you want KISS by imposing rules on the many to make responsibilities fewer for the few, build a walled garden. Building a safe playground has never been what Linux has been about, or what it has been advocated or marketed as, in the ten or so years I've been using it. > > It's a lot like the CUPS/lprng situation we discussed before. CUPS can > do anything that lprng does, so it makes no sense to keep support for > lprng. It's the same: with an initramfs you will be able to do > anything, so it will make no sense to keep supporting initramfs-less > systems. While I came down on the CUPS side of that argument, udev is a very different beast. -- :wq
