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 1R45yg-0002LJ-WD for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:03:19 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B8D5221C11B; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:03:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net (smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net [212.54.34.164]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A70B021C11B for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 07:02:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [212.54.34.136] (helo=smtp5.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net) by smtpq1.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R45xQ-0002I5-4n for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:02:00 +0200 Received: from 5ed027a1.cm-7-1a.dynamic.ziggo.nl ([94.208.39.161] helo=data.antarean.org) by smtp5.gn.mail.iss.as9143.net with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1R45x6-0006ln-La for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:01:40 +0200 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A893F6C4 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:01:49 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at antarean.org Received: from data.antarean.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (data.antarean.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Lfrs1YPqRiwL for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:01:47 +0200 (CEST) Received: from eve.localnet (eve.lan.antarean.org [10.20.13.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by data.antarean.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E236635 for ; Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:01:47 +0200 (CEST) From: Joost Roeleveld To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] udev + /usr Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2011 09:01:37 +0200 Message-ID: <2056931.seTjzgOPrt@eve> User-Agent: KMail/4.7.1 (Linux/2.6.36-gentoo-r5; KDE/4.7.1; x86_64; ; ) In-Reply-To: References: <20110912150248.GB3599@acm.acm> <1769799.TszvVHMTQM@eve> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-ID: 1R45x6-0006ln-La X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-SpamCheck: geen spam, SpamAssassin (niet cached, score=-0.692, vereist 5, BAYES_00 -1.90, KHOP_DYNAMIC 0.73, RDNS_DYNAMIC 0.98, RP_MATCHES_RCVD -0.50) X-ZiggoSMTP-MailScanner-From: joost@antarean.org X-Spam-Status: No X-Archives-Salt: X-Archives-Hash: a0dbd114a2a5a00aec3addc175cf08c5 On Wednesday, September 14, 2011 10:30:03 AM Canek Pel=E1ez Vald=E9s wr= ote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2011 at 1:52 AM, Joost Roeleveld = wrote: > > On Tuesday, September 13, 2011 06:33:01 PM Canek Pel=E1ez Vald=E9s = wrote: > >> On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 6:10 PM, Michael Schreckenbauer > >> > >=20 > > wrote: > >> > If gentoo follows fedora on this mandatory initramfs trail, I'll= > >> > switch to FreeBSD completely. My software works on way more > >> > systems than just "Linux". > >>=20 > >> That's of course your prerogative. And, as I said before: "Linux > >> strives to be much more than Unix, and that means do things > >> differently." If you want to do things the same way that it was do= ne > >> in the last 20 years, maybe Linux is not the best of choices. > >=20 > > I read it before, but to be much more then Unix, Linux should be do= ing > > things better. Being different is what led to MS Windows' >=20 > But that's the thing: we (you and me) don't see the situation the sam= e > way. To me, the proposed changes are for the better. There are not many people who agree with you here. The changes will lead to a C:-drive, similar to MS Windows, where every= thing=20 has to be a single partition. For various reasons, using seperate partitions are a better solution: - It allows for the use of filesystems better suited to the type of fi= les and=20 usage on each partition.=20 - It prevents a single part of the filesystem to kill the entire system= . (I=20 can risk loosing 1 partition and not loose the rest of my data) > >> I myself think the new technologies are worth to change the way we= did > >> things before. But that's just me. > >=20 > > The new technologies have great merit. But, the implementation of i= t > > isn't thought through. >=20 > In my humble opinion, what you just said is a little pedantic. You ca= n > disagree with the proposed changes, you can argue why you think > another approach could be better. But just saying "the implementation= > of it isn't thought through", is a little insulting to the devs. I > think they though about the implementation a lot. They may have thought about it, but didn't think things through. I have already stated a better way of doing it in the past few days. I = will=20 repeat it here. The problem-scope that udev is TRYING to solve should NOT be solved in = a=20 single tool. The main purpose of udev is to populate the /dev-tree. The running of scripts based on /dev-tree events should be in a seperat= e tool=20 that starts later in the boot-process. Merging these 2, without properly handling failures, is bad design. Forcing ALL Linux users to use a C-drive is one of the worst design fla= ws I=20 have ever encountered. Forcing the use of an init* which can leave systems unbootable, is also= a=20 design flaw. How do you propose to fix the situation where the init* is broken and s= omeone=20 is unable to mount all the filesystems needed to rebuild the init* beca= use=20 udev, which SHOULD be populating the /dev-tree, refuses to do the singl= e job=20 it is designed to do? Then rethink about the fact that not all computers are easily accessibl= e=20 and/or have cd-drives/usb-ports active. My desktop has them active, my servers don't as I do not need USB on th= e=20 server. > >> >> And maybe I shouldn't even mention it, but I don't use OpenRC. = I > >> >> use > >> >> systemd. And it works great on Gentoo. > >> >=20 > >> > Well. Linux only. If I wanted a monoculture, I would use > >> > MS-Windows or > >> > OSX. > >>=20 > >> Relax man. I mention what I use: I'm not forcing you (or anybody e= lse) > >> to use it. But I repeat (because I said it before) that I care abo= ut > >> Linux, and Linux only. > >=20 > > If you care about Linux, why do you allow it to be broken in such a= > > fundamental way? >=20 > Again, to me is not "breaking it". To me is "improving it". Adding another SPOF (Single Point Of Failure) is not an improvement. -- Joost