On Thursday, September 15, 2011 07:37:17 PM pk wrote: > On 2011-09-15 16:57, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > Of course you can solve it differently, for example splitting udev as > > Joost proposes. But then is more code to maintain, and the number of > > possible setups is suddenly the double it was before. It. Is. Not. > > KISS. > > https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Unix_philosophy > > I can especially point out: > Rule of Modularity > Rule of Parsimony > Rule of Diversity
I like those :) > > It's a lot like the CUPS/lprng situation we discussed before. CUPS can > > do anything that lprng does, so it makes no sense to keep support for > > lprng. It's the same: with an initramfs you will be able to do > > anything, so it will make no sense to keep supporting initramfs-less > > systems. > > "... one ring to rule them all..." "...My Precious..." :) -- Joost
