On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Dale <[email protected]> wrote: > Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Pandu Poluan<[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Jan 4, 2012 6:19 AM, "Dale"<[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Neil Bothwick wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:31:20 +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I know. It's the "I want to get the rid of initramfs" thing that looks >>>>>> crazy to me. >>>>> >>>>> No one is saying they want to get rid of the initramfs, because they >>>>> are >>>>> not using one. What people object to is being forced to start using >>>>> one. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You got that right. I have not used one since I started using Gentoo. >>>> Now, I may very well have to start. I hope mdev gets to a point where >>>> it >>>> works really well on desktop systems. >>>> >>> You were there in the thread linked by Walt, udev is just one of several >>> packages maintained by RH people that *demands* /usr to be mounted during >>> boot. >>> >>> And the RH devels insistence to deprecate /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin... >>> >>> I'm getting depressed. One battle might be won (mdev vs udev), but >>> there's >>> still a war against the RH braindeadness... >> >> I'm sorry to tell you this, but (as admirable as it could be), the >> mdev hack to use it instead of udev is not a "victory". We are not at >> war, in the first place; and in the second place, the mdev hack would >> be used by a handful of guys bent on refusing a change that, like it >> or not, would in the end come. Like Gentoo on FreeBSD, it would be a >> nice hack, maybe even worthy of applause, but in the end irrelevant: a >> toy. A cute, entertaining (and, in a few cases, useful) toy. But a toy >> nonetheless. >> >> The heavy development will continue to happen in udev, and the devices >> that will dominate in the future (touchscreens, bluetooth input and >> audio devices, hardware that has a highly dynamic change rate) will >> only be supported by udev. The mdev hack will be useful maybe to only >> some guys, and even then udev would be able to do the same (and more). >> >> The use of an initramfs (or, alternatively, having /usr in the same >> partition as /), and maybe the move of /bin to /usr/bin and /lib to >> /usr/lib will be made, and in the future most of the interesting >> software will simply assume that this is how a system works. Maybe we >> will even stop to use the ridiculous short directory names from the >> stone age, and we will start using sensible names: >> >> /usr -> /System >> /etc -> /Config >> /var -> /Variable >> >> I feel a deep respect for the people working on making mdev a >> "replacement" of udev; it is not an easy task (even if it only works >> for a really small subset of the use cases udev covers), and something >> that I certainly would never do. But their hack (as beautiful as it >> may be) will never be used by the majority of Linux users, and >> probably not even by the majority of Gentoo users (if my >> interpretation of the discussion on gentoo-dev is correct). And with >> the pass of time it will be harder and harder to keep the hack working >> with new hardware, new software, and new use cases. >> >> But, hey, this is FOSS; you guys go nuts hacking in whatever feature >> (or anti-feature) you like. As in the case of this mdev hack, it may >> even be included in the Gentoo ebuilds. Just don't expect it to be >> supported forever, don't expect it to support general-purpose setups, >> and certainly don't call it "a victory". It's just the same history as >> always: the people writing the code are the ones calling the shots. >> >> Regards. > > > I wonder how many times this has been said about other software that is now > in wide spread use. Keep in mind, some people think Gentoo is dying and has > been dying for YEARS. That's not just one package but a whole distro.
Netcraft confirms it? > > Will mdev replace udev, I dunno. Thing is, you don't know that it won't > either. Someone could come along and help Walter and make it better than > udev ever dreamed of being. It's not that mdev will be better than udev, or udev better than mdev, it's that they'll be able to service different roles very effectively. > I just have to mention hal too. Lots of people thought that was the new > sliced bread and frozen pizza. It sure did fall hard tho. For a fair number of use cases, udev works pretty well. It's been around for far longer, too. > As I said about my ex once, time tells. Sometimes, time is the only thing > that does tell too. Reminds me of wine although I don't drink it. I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look at udev and mdev as winner or loser. I'm not trying to be even-handed or fair in this; I just think they service different needs. Currently, the only advantage I see for udev in a server is the ability to give network interfaces meaningful names... -- :wq
