Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-(

[Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>]

On Tue, 13 Mar 2012 17:35:05 -0400 (EDT)
"Bruce Hill, Jr." <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> On March 13, 2012 at 5:22 PM "Canek Peláez Valdés" <caneko@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 2:54 PM, Bruce Hill, Jr.
> > <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On March 13, 2012 at 4:27 PM "Canek Peláez Valdés"
> > > <caneko@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >>
> > >> "Fringe" programs will not require udev, or it will be optional;
> > >> but the moment a "fringe" program reaches critical mass to become
> > >> "maistream", the probability of it needing udev (directly or
> > >> indirectly) will increase.
> > >>
> > >> I'm willing to bet a beer on that prediction.
> > >>
> > >> Regards.
> > >> --
> > >> Canek Peláez Valdés
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It _sounds_ like your definition of a "fringe" program is one
> > > that does
> not
> > > need udev; but when it becomes "mainstream" it will need udev. If
> > > not,
> you
> > > write us the definition of a "fringe" program and a "mainstream"
> program.
> > >
> > > Excuse me, but that's just incredibly _arrogant_!
> >
> > Relax man. That's why "fringe" is written QUOTE fringe UNQUOTE, and
> > "mainstream" is written QUOTE mainstream UNQUOTE. If it makes you
> > happy, replace "fringe" with "GNOME/KDE/XFCE/lvm2-not-related" and
> > "mainstream" with "GNOME/KDE/XFCE/lvm2-related". That's using the
> > very same definition that Walter (the guy behind the
> > mdev-instead-of-udev effort) used just three mails below (or above,
> > depending on your email client).
> >
> > Please chill, no need to get all worked out.
> >
> > And I maintain my prediction.
> >
> > Regards.
> > --
> > Canek Peláez Valdés
> 
> 
> 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."

I'll start the reply with a joke. I read a tongue-in-cheek post
somewhere recently (maybe even here) that for a program to be
considered successful at MIT it always gets to a point where it can
send and receive mail. Any program that can't send and receive mail is
obviously not yet good enough for real-world use. Very tongue-in-cheek.

But it's true enough. Hell, the monitoring guys at work use SMTP as
transport for several time-critical monitor probes (a delay of 5
minutes causes all hell to break loose...)

Why SMTP you ask? Well, because it's there. Because it's ubiquitous.
Because you can panelbeat it to make it work even when you shouldn't.
Because corporate coders are lazy. Because corporate coders don't know
any better. Because all of the above.

I really doubt the majority of apps requiring udev actually require
udev itself. Maybe they just need nodes, or only need a node manager.
Most likely, the dev looked at the scene, listed his possibilities and
saw... udev, and nothing else. Therefore it requires udev. Which is
about as logical as requiring /usr/ if you think about it.

Changing this will take a huge mindshift on the part of large developer
communities (outside of udev) to consider other possibilities. This
will take a while, much like wrestling market share away from Apache.


> 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!

I'm in the "let's not emulate Microsoft with udev" camp myself, but I
also see the bigger picture. It's not only that udev is pushing it's
agenda on the rest of the stack, one must also consider that the rest
of the stack is doing things that require udev to react, and one of the
fallout cases is separate /usr needing initramfs. I personally don't
like it but I think I understand the ecosystem that produced it.


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com