From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1REAs9-0007bq-04 for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:18:14 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D079621C023; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:17:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6B83921C024 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:17:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF51A1B400E for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:17:22 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new using ClamAV at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -4.71 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.71 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=1.889, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 0qmltZt6na-5 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:17:16 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB68C1B4011 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:17:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1REAr8-0003eN-Nf for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:17:10 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:17:10 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 13 Oct 2011 04:17:10 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Suggestion for getting rid of udev Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2011 02:16:59 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <20111012044023.GA8203@waltdnes.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.135 (Tomorrow I'll Wake Up and Scald Myself with Tea; GIT 8e43cc5 branch-master) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: 1da41cd69166c2a4aaf8cd8d4cc017ca Rich Freeman posted on Wed, 12 Oct 2011 09:26:12 -0400 as excerpted: > My concern with something like dropping udev is that it would make us > different from every other desktop distro out there. I'm not aware of > any distro packaging Gnome/KDE without udev. Not having Redhat's > billions to me is a good reason to try to do things the same way that > Redhat does them - so that we're not re-inventing the wheel. I'm sure you didn't mean that the way it looks, or next, we'd certainly=20 be switching to binary-by-default. However, you bring up a good point that I've seen repeated in one way or=20 another in many discussions about Linux distros and how the compare and=20 differ, and in particular, what makes the Linux ecosystem different from=20 the Unix ecosystem before it, which ultimately so differentiated that=20 each brand was effectively its own OS (as can still be seen in the=20 various BSDs today, to some degree, as well as in the surviving=20 commercial Unixen, despite POSIX and etc.). The point as I've seen it repeatedly made, is that what tends to keep the= =20 various Linuxen compatible is that while each distro does choose its own=20 points of differentiation and does indeed differ in those points from=20 most others, due to the forces of free/libre and open source, if one ends= =20 up really better, the others all adapt pretty much the same thing, *AND*=20 perhaps more importantly, with f/l/os... --> Each point of difference requires a significant --> investment of time and energy from a distro's devs --> that they could otherwise avoid. That economy of efficiency forces distros to choose the points of=20 distinction they REALLY value, and work on them, while in other areas,=20 it's much more efficient to just go with the mainline flow, because being= =20 different requires WORK, both to achieve, and to maintain, especially at=20 FLOSS development speed. (Of course, a subpoint can be mentioned as well, that in an all-volunteer= =20 community distro such as gentoo, to a rather large degree, the amount of=20 resources the distro chooses to devote to any potential point of=20 differentiation, depends on what individual developers choose to push as=20 their own personal projects, and the degree to which they can motivate=20 other devs and non-dev community volunteers to work with them toward that= =20 goal.) Thus, the point I'd make and that I believe you were making is not that=20 Gentoo can't be different, or we'd obviously be doing a binary distro=20 like everyone else, but that we pick the differences which we value=20 enough to develop and maintain, and while the customization that building= =20 from source allows is one of them, gentoo's not known as a "no-udev"=20 distro now, and making it so by default is in practice going to cost=20 resources that we simply don't have, so it's extremely unlikely to happen= . But gentoo /does/ value the ability of the administrator to make that=20 sort of choice for themselves, and gentoo would not be gentoo, if it=20 didn't try to preserve that choice where possible given development=20 resource constraints, because that is one of the points of=20 differentiation that gentoo has always focused on. Individual apps and=20 indeed, whole desktop environments, may require udev, but that doesn't=20 mean the gentoo machine admin isn't free to choose alternatives that=20 don't require it. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman