[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Really, about udev, not init sytsems (was: Gentoo guys starting a fork of udev)

On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 05:15:25PM +0100, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> If both Ubuntu and Gentoo would just go with the rest of the community
> and accept systemd, we wouldn't have to bother whether udev runs
> without systemd or not.

I would highly prefer a system where I can take small bites if I want
to, and where components are as portable as possible, and as it stands,
I am very uncomfortable with systemd, too. It's certainly
interesting, but having a hard dependency on it is imho a no-no.

Please take a step back, look at the bigger picture, and tell me
whether you think that we, as Debianites, or as Free Software
Advocates, are still heading in the right direction:

1. What does it mean if more and more software is required to run a
   Linux system, in the various scenarios, and losing the ability to
   swap components w/o major kernel hackery? So far, being highly
   modular was a way to contain the complexity, and finish off bugs.
   It's not only "more eyeballs" to catch them, it's also the complexity
   that makes it increasingly hard for people to understand what's going
   on in the first place, so the problem of having the required
   knowledge, that you highlighted in your message, will only get worse
   and worse with tighter integration.

2. What does it mean if more and more software only runs on Linux?

3. What does it mean that - my claim/experience - more and more Linux
   software is simply broken (see Gnome for a popular example, but I
   have more)?

> I don't see anyway why something as low-level
> as udev should be highly portable in the first place.

Maybe, but I do see why systemd must not be a hard dependency of the
Linux kernel, and if systemd is basically the user-space part of udev,
and both can't live without each other, then something is fundamentally
wrong in the design. IMHO.

Kind regards,

PS: Please don't Cc' me, I'm on the list.

Reply to: