[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)

+++ John Paul Adrian Glaubitz [2012-11-24 18:30 +0100]:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 06:03:02PM +0100, Toni Mueller wrote: 
> > 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
> Why? Why would you want to rip such low-level stuff apart? It
> seriously doesn't make any sense unless you need a highly-customized
> setup, for embedded applications, for example.

Right. Exactly. You have a very 'desktoppy' view of the world.
Embedded people have been using different init systems for years, and
sometimes running without udev entirely, and different
device-configuration schemes. This stuff matters, and making bigger
monolithic pieces is, in general, not helpful. 

> When you have something
> such low-level, you're best off with taking the best solution which
> is clearly systemd 

I don't think everyone agrees that this is at all clear.

> I'm sorry for the harsh tone, but it's really something that annoys
> me, people constantly complaining about systemd but never really
> coming up with good arguments why something as low-level as
> systemd/udev should be replacable in the first place. 95% of the users
> don't care and just want something that's reliable.

95% of _desktop_ users, which is a tiny fraction of _linux_ users.
Your perspective is highly skewed. Linux is a very wide ecosystem,
with many many use cases. Who are you to tell all those people that
they are wrong to want/need to use udev without systemd, or indeed use
something other than systemd for their init process?

Principal hats:  Linaro, Emdebian, Wookware, Balloonboard, ARM

Reply to: