Mike Edenfield wrote: >> From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com] > >> This has been one of my points too. I could go out and buy me a bluetooth >> mouse/keyboard but I don't because it to complicates matters. > > I had a long reply to Walt that I (probably wisely) decided not to send, but > the basic point of it is also relevant here. My response to his (IMO > needlessly aggressive) email was basically this: > > Why *shouldn't I* be able to go but a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse if I > wanted to? Those things *work perfectly fine with udev*. And why wouldn't I > want to use the *same* solution for all of my various machines, even if that > solution is "overkill" for half of them? Just because my laptop doesn't need > bluetoothd support in udev doesn't mean using udev there *is bad*. (I don't > need 80% of what's in the Linux kernel but I still install one...) > > I am not in any way denigrating the work he's doing. I think it's awesome > and I've tried to help where I can. But I'm pretty fed up with people like > him acting as if the current udev solution is the end of the world. I've > heard it called everything from "design mistake" to "out of control truck > full of manure". > > I have three PCs in my home running Gentoo. Two of them would boot correctly > using Walt's new solution (mdev and no /usr mounted at boot) and one would > not. *All three of them* boot correctly using udev. 100% success > 66% > success, so clearly the udev solution is a perfectly legitimate solution to > a real world problem. At work, those numbers are likely different, and > Walt's solution might be a working approach -- if udev didn't already work > fine in 100% of those cases, too. > > Instead of asking why everyone else should be "forced" to use the udev > solution *that already works*, you should be focusing on explaining to > everyone else the reasons why it is worth the time and effort to configure > *something different* for those same machines. There was a reason why people > stopped using static /dev, and devfs; maybe there is a reason why people > should stop using udev, but thus far that reason seems to be "initramfs > makes us cranky." > > There's no need to get mean-spirited just because you choose a different > audience that freedesktop.org as the target for your solution. It just makes > you look petty and childish. Produce an alternative to > "udev/initramfs/single root" that works, provide (accurate) details on the > differences, and let users pick which one they want. > > --Mike > > >
I have a question or two. If udev was going to *break* your bluetooth keyboard, what would you say then? To me, having a bluetooth keyboard is a bit out there. If udev was going to break a PS/2 keyboard, what would you say then? I suspect PS/2 keyboards outnumber bluetooth and most likely by a wide margin. Right now, udev is going to ruin my system while yours works. What if it was going to make my system work while breaking yours? Would you make the same argument? One other question, does your BIOS allow you to use your bluetooth keyboard? Just a thought. I'm going to take my meds. Ya'll argue for a while. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
