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 0A3CD13873B for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:11:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 98E5CE0B2F; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:10:57 +0000 (UTC) Received: from qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net (qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net [76.96.62.17]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C039BE0B14 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:10:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.74]) by qmta10.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Z4Wq1n0041c6gX85A7AwTP; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:10:56 +0000 Received: from ajax ([24.11.47.14]) by omta23.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast id Z7Aw1n00B0JMh7c3j7Aw3e; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 19:10:56 +0000 Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 14:10:44 -0500 From: Frank Peters To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Please get me straight about sysvinit vs. systemd, udev vs eudev vs mdev, virtuals and other things... Message-Id: <20140303141044.a39135a353f02757254832f3@comcast.net> In-Reply-To: References: <5314B8C6.3040803@libertytrek.org> <20140303131242.5cb4eb9a6e0128e678d12a92@comcast.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.3.0 (GTK+ 2.24.22; x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu) 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-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=comcast.net; s=q20121106; t=1393873856; bh=PLn0B/hres9YaMrFWSitvGwPf4EBHOfnXUHzeWVO9gg=; h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Mime-Version: Content-Type; b=qwllb0MWRD+LQLXenMMFU86rFTfyddGh0ffV6UMa57byqKnM2C/fatvol/YlGGVtD yUJo8w7IQOm/st61Xj748+MWoP5OwOXKyr6MsCqW7BPxS6vgkxy2GLISkx0ILN5VZc uCTktkuEUAa+1D6ETf2RUdWRBzFwJ7v0hd6OLFFVvZbIuW6JjdXKCY5/FJfrAEJcB8 HLTC9bBzf6BCVSq+9WXlNgP/iCnpaTmPLA/1WHjLq1aERfJPNcu6eq5NofqR7cuZJu yQFFiCe59wj1oLzTJ2090E7KW5ziCoOc3agBtjRA1WV+IWC+GqhgOgmNN+LxUdQz9y BdwuXIb2HqJCg== X-Archives-Salt: 05b14345-1662-4890-9de9-f609f1b87590 X-Archives-Hash: 5c659b6942a9bf2206f19a36d525d6c8 On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:20:29 -0600 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > > > I have never used udev/eudev/mdev or anything similar and, if I am allowed > > to nave a choice, I never will. > > You will always have that choice, since the software is free. > That's not true anymore. My USB scanners will not operate unless udev is able to create an entry within the /dev tree. Fortunately, I was able to discover a work-around that does not require udev, but the point is that freedom of choice is starting to disappear. Udev will eventually be the *only* way to deal with hardware. > > If you want to create a /dev tree for a computer that never gets new > hardware connected via USB, bluetooth, or another bus, yeah, it's > pretty trivial. > > Too bad that kind of computer is going the way of the dodo. > Also not true. We are, to be sure, experiencing explosive growth in mobile computing but there is still a substantial number of traditional desktop machines in operation for which udev is still quite unnecessary. But, to continue your point, we can also claim that hardware itself is going the way of the dodo. The way of the future is to have Linux, and all other operating systems, existing on top of layers of virtualization without the need for specific hardware concerns at all. This possibility for total virtualization would still not be desirable for all. > > The alternatives will be always available, of course. > I hope that you are right, but when I see distributions like "Linux >From Scratch," which purport to give the user total understanding and control of his system, not including alternatives to udev I begin to have serious doubts. Frank Peters