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 0643F13873B for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:20:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1F324E0B03; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:20:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lb0-f175.google.com (mail-lb0-f175.google.com [209.85.217.175]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37280E0AF4 for ; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 19:20:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lb0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w7so4878296lbi.20 for ; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:20:36 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=eXuI6yfi0KM3AA9uLhr3LMBu4PCLHgQxNKhp/ptHbi4=; b=NZqXjJGRT9mA32rELfoX/h8aS1ZuzASR9Xl9BGOVH8ZiWrQnxec+Rv3hDZvfLjuiVN TAtJtw1Nwd/7iPAsJQASHEwWnRIQ4K2i393zpEFSy3TsnmcFwj4GkqVhFy71A18o9Lys asFv+EuOfB4TcN9l6rAuHo9lVwkqmJPbc0mEWS2nkEZoWJKXRtJWm/IlIOHKYPckdGUL XluLM4apVuSTOYSGJLW0ze9XHqBW82Y6fxVKQjAuv38FHw2M5Z+97yNEJgRbGznCrfPE QpuMPsGWKDR69vKMntmT+Z90x4+PjFIXUwpsytJZLv5TVc8Jd6ddvUjo6jic89YhTOCP nC8A== 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 X-Received: by 10.153.4.43 with SMTP id cb11mr4520111lad.42.1393874436765; Mon, 03 Mar 2014 11:20:36 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.114.176.36 with HTTP; Mon, 3 Mar 2014 11:20:36 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20140303141044.a39135a353f02757254832f3@comcast.net> References: <5314B8C6.3040803@libertytrek.org> <20140303131242.5cb4eb9a6e0128e678d12a92@comcast.net> <20140303141044.a39135a353f02757254832f3@comcast.net> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2014 13:20:36 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Please get me straight about sysvinit vs. systemd, udev vs eudev vs mdev, virtuals and other things... From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= To: gentoo-amd64@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: 9799039c-206f-4e56-87b3-6065c3a74e2f X-Archives-Hash: c0640260acda5da149e35c6e889ad130 On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 1:10 PM, Frank Peters wro= te: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:20:29 -0600 > Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s wrote: > >> > >> > I have never used udev/eudev/mdev or anything similar and, if I am all= owed >> > 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. The repositories for everything SANE related are out there, aren't they? Grab the code from pre-udev times and update it to support the new scanners. The code is free, you can do it. > 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. Mmmh, not true. The *BSD deal with hardware, and they don't use udev. You mean in Linux? If someone *willing and able* wants to write support for hardware that doesn't uses udev, they could, and they will. Of course, most people willing and able actually works with udev and systemd, and they think they are a really neat idea. But the code is out there, if you are so determined to pursue that goal. I, and most people I believe, would think is a waste of time, but that's the beauty of Free Software; nobody can stop anyone to write what they want. >> 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. Sorry, I believe you are wrong. I have a desktop computer, and I connect a lot of hardware to it. Including bluetooth stuff. I don't want to create a static /dev for it; I'm perfectly happy using udev with my desktop computer. > 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 virtualizat= ion > without the need for specific hardware concerns at all. And systemd works *beautifully* inside containers. If you are really interested, I recommend you reading about systemd-nspawn[1]. > This possibility for total virtualization would still not be desirable > for all. I don't see how I can make a cell phone call without a physical cell phone. >> 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. The alternatives will be always available, if someone writes code for them and test them and fill bug reports for them. So, if you really want the alternatives to work, help them. Contribute to its authors. I'm perfectly happy with and standardized plumbing for Linux in general. Regards. [1] http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd-nspawn.html --=20 Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingenier=C3=ADa de la Computaci=C3=B3n Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico