On Mon, Mar 3, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Frank Peters <frank.pet...@comcast.net> wrote: > On Mon, 3 Mar 2014 12:40:59 -0500 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> >> Honestly, there is no shortage of people offering their opinions. >> What there is a shortage of is people actually doing work to make >> (e)udev do anything differently. In the end people can complain as >> much as they want, but unless they fork over effort or dollars or >> something they won't get terribly far. >> > > Work? What work? > > I have never used udev/eudev/mdev or anything similar and, if I am allowed > to nave a choice, I never will.
You will always have that choice, since the software is free. > Manually creating a /dev tree that perfectly reflects ones own system > is rather trivial. That's how Linux used to be and that's how Linux, > for the most part, still is. There is, or at least should be, no need > for udev or any substitute for udev. If you want to create a /dev tree for a computer that never gets new hardware connected via USB, bluetooth, or another bus, yeah, it's pretty trivial. Too bad that kind of computer is going the way of the dodo. > IOW, udev should be developed as a nice, helpful option for those who > want such nice, helpful options. But it always should be just that: optional. > Once it stops being a choice then we begin to deviate greatly from > the once sacrosanct principles of free software. We agree on that one. Of course, if a distribution wants to support as many users as they could, they probably will choose the nice, helpful options. The alternatives will be always available, of course. It's just that perhaps no distribution will want to do the "rather trivial" work of generating a static /dev tree for *your* computer. But is rather trivial, isn't it? So it doesn't matter. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
