Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 3

[Michael Mol <mikemol@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:33 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 4, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Pandu Poluan<pandu@poluan.info>  wrote:
>>>
>>> On Jan 4, 2012 6:19 AM, "Dale"<rdalek1967@gmail.com>  wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 3 Jan 2012 15:31:20 +0100, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I know. It's the "I want to get the rid of initramfs" thing that looks
>>>>>> crazy to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> No one is saying they want to get rid of the initramfs, because they
>>>>> are
>>>>> not using one. What people object to is being forced to start using
>>>>> one.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You got that right.  I have not used one since I started using Gentoo.
>>>>  Now, I may very well have to start.  I hope mdev gets to a point where
>>>> it
>>>> works really well on desktop systems.
>>>>
>>> You were there in the thread linked by Walt, udev is just one of several
>>> packages maintained by RH people that *demands* /usr to be mounted during
>>> boot.
>>>
>>> And the RH devels insistence to deprecate /bin, /sbin, /usr/sbin...
>>>
>>> I'm getting depressed. One battle might be won (mdev vs udev), but
>>> there's
>>> still a war against the RH braindeadness...
>>
>> I'm sorry to tell you this, but (as admirable as it could be), the
>> mdev hack to use it instead of udev is not a "victory". We are not at
>> war, in the first place; and in the second place, the mdev hack would
>> be used by a handful of guys bent on refusing a change that, like it
>> or not, would in the end come. Like Gentoo on FreeBSD, it would be a
>> nice hack, maybe even worthy of applause, but in the end irrelevant: a
>> toy. A cute, entertaining (and, in a few cases, useful) toy. But a toy
>> nonetheless.
>>
>> The heavy development will continue to happen in udev, and the devices
>> that will dominate in the future (touchscreens, bluetooth input and
>> audio devices, hardware that has a highly dynamic change rate) will
>> only be supported by udev. The mdev hack will be useful maybe to only
>> some guys, and even then udev would be able to do the same (and more).
>>
>> The use of an initramfs (or, alternatively, having /usr in the same
>> partition as /), and maybe the move of /bin to /usr/bin and /lib to
>> /usr/lib will be made, and in the future most of the interesting
>> software will simply assume that this is how a system works. Maybe we
>> will even stop to use the ridiculous short directory names from the
>> stone age, and we will start using sensible names:
>>
>> /usr ->  /System
>> /etc ->  /Config
>> /var ->  /Variable
>>
>> I feel a deep respect for the people working on making mdev a
>> "replacement" of udev; it is not an easy task (even if it only works
>> for a really small subset of the use cases udev covers), and something
>> that I certainly would never do. But their hack (as beautiful as it
>> may be) will never be used by the majority of Linux users, and
>> probably not even by the majority of Gentoo users (if my
>> interpretation of the discussion on gentoo-dev is correct). And with
>> the pass of time it will be harder and harder to keep the hack working
>> with new hardware, new software, and new use cases.
>>
>> But, hey, this is FOSS; you guys go nuts hacking in whatever feature
>> (or anti-feature) you like. As in the case of this mdev hack, it may
>> even be included in the Gentoo ebuilds. Just don't expect it to be
>> supported forever, don't expect it to support general-purpose setups,
>> and certainly don't call it "a victory". It's just the same history as
>> always: the people writing the code are the ones calling the shots.
>>
>> Regards.
>
>
> I wonder how many times this has been said about other software that is now
> in wide spread use.  Keep in mind, some people think Gentoo is dying and has
> been dying for YEARS.  That's not just one package but a whole distro.

Netcraft confirms it?

>
> Will mdev replace udev, I dunno.  Thing is, you don't know that it won't
> either.  Someone could come along and help Walter and make it better than
> udev ever dreamed of being.

It's not that mdev will be better than udev, or udev better than mdev,
it's that they'll be able to service different roles very effectively.

> I just have to mention hal too.  Lots of people thought that was the new
> sliced bread and frozen pizza.  It sure did fall hard tho.

For a fair number of use cases, udev works pretty well. It's been
around for far longer, too.

> As I said about my ex once, time tells.  Sometimes, time is the only thing
> that does tell too.  Reminds me of wine although I don't drink it.

I think it's absolutely ridiculous to look at udev and mdev as winner
or loser. I'm not trying to be even-handed or fair in this; I just
think they service different needs.

Currently, the only advantage I see for udev in a server is the
ability to give network interfaces meaningful names...

-- 
:wq