On Wed, Dec 26, 2012 at 6:45 PM, Pandu Poluan <pa...@poluan.info> wrote:
>
> On Dec 26, 2012 1:05 AM, "Canek Peláez Valdés" <can...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> {supersnip}> Canek, I distinctly remember, at the very beginning of this brouhaha over > udev requiring /usr to be mounted at boot time, you stated something along > the lines of 'show me the code, then I'll believe that replacing udev is > doable'. Yeah, and like I said, check the commits in eudev. They haven't done nothing but to remove code and a very rational (IMO) dependency, kmod. > First, Walter Dnes came out with an amazingly complete -- considering it was > all done by just one man -- solution using mdev. You scoffed at him, saying > that mdev solution is incomplete. I'm sorry if sounded like scoffing (certainly I don't remember scoffing anyone, at least consciously). I remember I praised Walt for doing the work for mdev. Do you remember that? I can dig the archives, but I'm pretty sure I said that I greatly admired him. > Now, some respected Gentoo devs forked udev into eudev, and produced a > working solution, yet you still scoff at them. I'm not the one doing the scoffing; those where Greg and Diego. And sorry, but I really trust those guys. > In your eyes, udev has become like the cosmos: everything there is, and ever > shall be. No, of course no. Hell, I hope something even better will be developed along the way. And I said at some point (to Greg, in the -dev list) that *perhaps* something good will come from eudev. I hope you remember, but (again) I can search the archives. > Greg KH and Diego Petteno are similar; they ridiculed a good forking by > spreading FUD, and almost totally unwilling to listen to rational arguments > from the devs about why udev is forked. As a result, they received great > opposition, in turn. Even Linus piped up at one point, sharply reminding > Greg KH that even though udev was at one time Greg's 'baby', at this point > udev serves only the wants of the few. I really think that's the crux of the matter Pandou: udev/systemd serves to the wants of the many. The eudev fork serves to the wants of a very few which really don't want an initramfs, when it has a lot of technical advantages. It has some problems, of course, but we can solve those, and solve the problem *in the general case*. Which is the one that it's important ant interesting. In my humble opinion (apparently, if I don't say that, it sounds like it's impossible for me to be wrong). > I'd say that you, Greg KH, and others denigrating eudev are udev fanatics, > preferring to denigrate anything outside the 'party lines' of udev+systemd. What about Diego? He doesn't like systemd. Pandou, the "party lines" and the "thought police" is the other way around in this list. You don't seem to remember my praises to Walt or my wishing luck to the eudev fork (which, BTW, Greg also did). The few of us who *dare* to praise udev/systemd get an incredible amount of crap for it. We are nothing but fanbois or, in your words, "udev has become like the cosmos: everything there is, and ever shall be." Really? I didn't knew that. Maybe we are doing it wrong. But as far as i can see, we are only expressing our opinion on technical grounds. We are not calling names nor doubting their technical backgrounds, nor telling people what they should or should not use. It's the other way around. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
