The 13/03/12, Bruce Hill, Jr. wrote: > > So, what qualifies for "the moment a "fringe" program reaches critical mass > to become "maistream", the probability of it needing udev (directly or > indirectly) will increase." > > Again, quoting _your_ definition. > > I gave you examples of programs which have reached critical mass, which > don't require udev. > > And, I'm not attaching your character, for I know you not ... just > attacking your FUD!
This is not FUD. And more importantly, what Canek says is certainly true. In the past, the kernel was handling devices alone. Since udev, the possibility for userland programs to hook themselves in this process became very easy. Some of them have use this feature very early but we can reasonably think the work is not totally achieved. Also, developers write code given the context at the time it is written. But the changing context doesn't necessarily imply other programs to be rewritten at the same time. Once the context changed, we can reasonably think that currently "working code not going to be hacked soon" will be rewritten in the longer run to take advantage of this udev facility. Pointing to this fact is not FUD. I'd say it is nice analysis which could even help the current udev -> mdev effort by providing a different picture of the landscape. -- Nicolas Sebrecht
