On 14 Feb 2016 21:31, Patrick Lauer wrote: > On 02/14/2016 09:23 PM, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 14 Feb 2016 11:41, Brian Dolbec wrote: > >> On Sun, 14 Feb 2016 11:00:30 -0500 Rich Freeman wrote: > >>> On Sun, Feb 14, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Patrick Lauer wrote: > >>>> If, for any reason, eudev should be abandoned - we can just change > >>>> the virtual back. One-line change. > >>> Which is precisely the corresponding argument for not switching the > >>> default to eudev in the first place. > >> OH, my, this is looking more like you are being paid by systemd peeps... > > honestly ? cut the crap man. > > > >> You are just refusing to acknowledge these simple facts. > >> > >> systemd.................: irrelevant to this decision > >> > >> standalone systemd-udev.: Vehemently unsupported, support for its > >> capability to exist is planned to be punted > >> in the future. > >> > >> eudev...................: fully functional, actively developed, > >> and fully supported, mature project, been > >> around for years. > > udev: it's the default in every major distro that everyone tests and > > develops against. > Not the standalone config we're using, so if you remove all > systemd-using distros which are irrelevant to this discussion you end up > with gentoo, and ~15 distros that use eudev. And of course other > irrelevant weirdos that use mdev, vdev etc. > > > > eudev: no one of any relevance outside of Gentoo runs it. > No one runs udev either. So that's a non-argument > > > So given the context of this discussion, and your ignorant contribution > ... maybe you should cut the crap, man. Being a bit more polite wouldn't > be wrong either.
yes, your e-mails in this thread are a shining example of how to collobarate and make cogent arguments. attacking people directly is definitely how you "win". it's too bad i haven't actually done any of what you're attempting to slander me with here. -mike
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
