From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2A63D1580B6 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 21:59:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 03B15E088B; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 21:59:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-il1-x134.google.com (mail-il1-x134.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::134]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 938DAE0829 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 21:59:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-il1-x134.google.com with SMTP id i13so4076893ilm.4 for ; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:59:19 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=2FO9kYcrSKi8P0H/DVwO8QyNbCu1fGmxfX7emyOr1ec=; b=nXMGaShY6FQ0wvAMkdKk35v/0yfDsdLhpBDGV68MS/frNJ+yM13ELvqJ/q4IHxiaBc c4FpGvuq/IgGIGeNEMjUpsRdSgTAqElUy97zoCTTcPQeUu013s2rrpEK4v4nSISOJyPN PcQ7sqh3EYqwqf2+n6BRGJ/Pz7fApiCKgxx8j7xyUgjk3pQ8bR3UhrTsuWfg325aHMFu zot5VQr53hISaJ4X3uYAj3ybz/3wtovvtdZrCm5PpHLJOo0QwjN5kUBL4OFZrUC8h+n7 U6+3oM37Xu9zNYxVbLXyAdX9X6wwmAGlHJhbVWye4129UYG/Yxr9rov9zSA2+RfHvrp+ VPcQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to; bh=2FO9kYcrSKi8P0H/DVwO8QyNbCu1fGmxfX7emyOr1ec=; b=aNjUacyi5lmAcYHfF0qv3QS7oMCYwxtXfxbtkpcR37O8/YsGs7Y8xhhDv9V/GZUJ1g Ds/SSRQG/d+ZTz0AIly8cxdiVSAjk9I7ElCGRhqw8hBJOORSXAreB1nPeNg8SZww3Ecr OGF5W7XPt3Fz3PbALWIm7kEFfz9RmDDH0oHH3blypGiIfB78+pmVZzNPUQW1WwmKg5qg jp3F6UL/XJsFnV2kn8lDz+ISGbKgtuz2I776PI8FlLXHjrc1ny0FSp0/WmvSQo9RVQRq kjPW3d+PaIBNpHeqbVnXBX//Xq3sB0buH3eoBELGjdUW+S6LODSIwFP3F8r6E4uC0wiZ sOTw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532BcGU3pliDdQUvuiXk8ejKsnbpnm8u27fNUDWJe4mnFGrjZ3/u K1qwQkIXwaFWRFTpwyeXLF5I+X9C3BkR405Nt+pXvMIcIqTz6g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzQgKXiQG/cqZLGIpvYDMrR4AUk7ShyTDm9WtalxkREgDw4Z77j9jdbhwkafQPbOZg5olsIqflIdui622Uqfbc= X-Received: by 2002:a92:870f:: with SMTP id m15mr21211140ild.2.1629669558579; Sun, 22 Aug 2021 14:59:18 -0700 (PDT) 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 X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20210821201720.13F158517F49@turkos.aspodata.se> <20210822203110.5C6BB8517F53@turkos.aspodata.se> In-Reply-To: <20210822203110.5C6BB8517F53@turkos.aspodata.se> From: =?UTF-8?B?Q2FuZWsgUGVsw6FleiBWYWxkw6lz?= Date: Sun, 22 Aug 2021 16:59:07 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] X11 without udev/eudev To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000023f63305ca2d0345" X-Archives-Salt: 1db2edeb-d0a4-4bf8-8a45-9f18103fd6a9 X-Archives-Hash: 9d1eb3b144169adfe153d8638618b3c2 --00000000000023f63305ca2d0345 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 3:32 PM wrote: [...] > I'll be looking into that, but on some level, why should I be forced to > go around udev. Can't programs be compiled without udev today... > Yes, they can, if you (or someone else) write the necessary code, debug it, maintain it and keep it up to date and fix vulnerabilities and other errors that inevitably will appear, as it does with every piece of software. > Udev should be an optional deamon, utilized when the local administrator > decides to do so. Wrong: the use of udev is to be decided by the developers of the code that uses it. If you don't like it, then you write your own. The code is free and open. Udev solves a very real problem, because most modern PCs have dynamic hardware; we connect and disconnect multiple devices from it all the time, and the vast majority of users prefer it when it simply works automagically. Moreover, it *also* works with static hardware, so it hits two birds with one stone. You want developers to write code that only benefits the simplest and most boring case: a PC that never changes hardware. Any sane developer will obviously prefer to depend on udev, which solves every case and it has the most users (and therefore feedback for detecting and correcting bugs, and also to ask for new features and capabilities). > I don't want things to automatically pop up unless I say so. > Then write yourself the corresponding software, or pay someone to do it. Otherwise, complaining (while cathartic and the preferred hobby of most of the internet) is completely useless. Regards. -- Dr. Canek Pel=C3=A1ez Vald=C3=A9s Profesor de Carrera Asociado C Departamento de Matem=C3=A1ticas Facultad de Ciencias Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma de M=C3=A9xico --00000000000023f63305ca2d0345 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Sun, Aug 22, 2021 at 3:32 PM <karl@aspodata.se> wrote:
[...]
I'll be looking into that, but on some level, why should I be forced to=
go around udev. Can't programs be compiled without udev today...

Yes, they can, if you (or someone else) write= the necessary code, debug it, maintain it and keep it up to date and fix v= ulnerabilities and other errors that inevitably will appear, as it does wit= h every piece of software.
=C2=A0
Udev should be an optional deamon, utilized when the local=C2=A0administrat= or decides to do so.

Wrong: the use of udev= is to be decided by the developers of the code that uses it. If you don= 9;t like it, then you write your own. The code is free and open.
=
Udev solves a very real=C2=A0problem, because most modern PC= s have dynamic hardware; we connect and disconnect multiple devices from it= all the time, and the vast majority of users prefer it when it simply work= s automagically. Moreover, it *also* works with static hardware, so it hits= two birds with one stone.

You want developers to = write code that only benefits the simplest and most boring case: a PC that = never changes hardware. Any sane developer will obviously prefer to depend = on udev, which solves every case and it has the most users (and therefore f= eedback for detecting and correcting bugs, and also to ask for new features= and capabilities).
=C2=A0
I don't want things to automatically=C2=A0pop up unle= ss I say so.

Then write yourself the co= rresponding software, or pay someone to do it. Otherwise, complaining (whil= e cathartic and the preferred hobby of most of the internet) is completely = useless.

Regards.=C2=A0
--
Dr. Canek Pel=C3= =A1ez Vald=C3=A9s
Profesor de Carrera Asociado C
Departamento de Mate= m=C3=A1ticas
Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Aut=C3=B3noma = de M=C3=A9xico
--00000000000023f63305ca2d0345--