From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE90E138247 for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 20:40:27 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1E521E0AA1; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 20:40:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net (qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net [76.96.27.228]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3331CE0A9B for ; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 20:40:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.30.28]) by qmta15.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id nYbb1m0040cQ2SLAFYgH1l; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 20:40:17 +0000 Received: from crud.chemoelectric.org ([66.41.30.59]) by omta10.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net with comcast id nYgM1m00H1GXozm8WYgN45; Sat, 09 Nov 2013 20:40:22 +0000 Received: by crud.chemoelectric.org (Postfix, from userid 1501) id 71C282187418C; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:40:21 -0600 (CST) Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2013 14:40:21 -0600 From: Barry Schwartz To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: USB Scanner Problems with Newer Kernels/Libusb Message-ID: <20131109204021.GA28493@crud> References: <20131108222553.33af27243ad5aa2411c3f0ff@comcast.net> <20131109114529.f29b71e10f00f6a8b170d0e8@comcast.net> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20131109114529.f29b71e10f00f6a8b170d0e8@comcast.net> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1384029617; bh=XP1AvJVrXFN8FDremga9ezb+OiBXoE0MahQ4//z3kB8=; h=Received:Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=gpCuIQoDmaXgWlVV/dPFiDAqyPos0jfTYViFteypxC+0Fpz1P9VPkxxHZi0vX9sbV MCJIYv1jz/FZj5ErDrNeSHU5u2pzTBu43t2jacRFkebBo9GcC0xtel288xjxgAkLxi tnfc3EF182kabYzdDrekDxM92vjXmG5XlFzfLUN2SmpaS/DdIjusozqbbncpi2TLH7 qCWRsDxqMWKF4IWk8mUEs+n4XfW/SJX3d8/I5XcrKaKagijTsJVpt+/U9Snwp8THC7 LeGOo4tA6y4JdtWCwJspjN56cSZ1Ww7noGNd/kOaMCo1fV9AXCCOlkoNxYNWDraYY4 cc0C2q3ZVl6bw== X-Archives-Salt: 74c6efd1-6016-4d30-b596-193f289f6bfb X-Archives-Hash: 2a7cee984772330554a982aae5eab54f Frank Peters skribis: > Of course I could always jump on the udev bandwagon, like most everyone > else, but I still very much enjoy the ability to control, in a simple > manner, the operation of my own system. I don't like the idea of another > system daemon doing things without my knowledge or approval. I don’t blame you, because it is quite a disaster, and is becoming all rolled up in the attempt to turn ‘Linux’ from a kernel into a ‘vertically integrated’ variant of MacOS. I’m actually using eudev, myself, but, regardless, never know when an update will render things like scanners non-working or at least give them incorrect access controls. I suppose it should be _possible_ to create the devices but would not be surprised if the task is non-trivial. Which is very, very un-Unix, and I think that really ought to be the end of it. I don’t mind fancy stuff but do mind when it is done in an extremely un-Unixy fashion.