[Novalug] Device naming.

[Peter Larsen]

On Mon, 2010-03-15 at 11:04 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote:

> > There's a lot more good reasons for dropping partitions and switching to
> > LVM.
> 
> I hesitate to ask: Huh??? What???

Yes - use LVM and not partitions.

> I learned about partitions the hard way in the late (fuck, can't type
> numbers today; talking about the eighties...) Oh numbers just started
> working again, ARGH!!!

Another good reason then. You've already identified many of the pitfalls
of partitions. Why not break that barrier and make life easier?

> > No, sysfs != devfs/udev. sysfs is pretty much everything hal found, plus
> > the ability to change/manipulate device settings (it supports both reads
> > and writes). This is where you'll manipulate your SCSI setup, force a
> > bus rescan etc.  sysfs is usually mounted on /sys.
> 
> /me recites his mantra
> 
> SHOW ME THE DOCS!!!
> GIVE ME LINKS!!!!
> GIVE ME GOOGLE SEARCH TERMS THAT WILL FIND THE DOCS IN THE FIRST TEN
> RESULTS!!!

Who cares? It doesn't matter if you get the docs or not. You've already
made up your mind, and you've clearly stated you refuse to read or learn
about anything that your preconceived mind has already decided it's
opinion about. And the documentation and references you've been given
you've ignored.

Instead you behave like we owe it to you to solve your problems. And
because we don't, you get angry at us and at the world. I think most of
us here subscribe to the mantra, that it's better to teach a man to
fish, than give him one. In that kind of world, if you don't like how to
fish, you'll starve. And from your utterings here, I'm sure you'll
starve blaming everyone else in the process. 

> Otherwise, STFU.

Ohh like you retreat to throwing out empty postulates and unfounded
accusations? I don't think you would like a vote here on who needs to
"STFU". But it sure sounds like I need to update my ignore filter here.

> > Well, kudzu is no more ;) Replaced permanently by udev. Kudzu's job was
> > to try to fix the static files you have in /etc when hardware changes -
> > there's no longer a need for you to change those files (they're actually
> > missing now). There were plenty of complaints about kudzu too. You're
> > damned if you do, you're damned if you don't. 
> 
> Then how does it know what partition has my programs and which has my
> anime?

You still haven't read any of the pages you've been pointed to? udev
rules defines what disk is what - or even better the label/uuid. Kudzu
NEVER had anything to do with that anyway.

> In DOS it didn't matter because no program really cared what drive it
> was on or where it data was; In many cases you could manual set the
> drive letter. You could also mount drives to paths as in linux and you
> could treat directories as separate drives, DOS RULED. In linux you have
> to mount crap in a specific place

You know, I still have an MSDOS 6.22 ISO here that I'll share with you.
You could "upgrade" your system and stick with it from now on. I think
you would save us all a lot of grief and time if you did. I'm beginning
to doubt you even use computers at a regular basis; being linux or
windows or anything else. You would know, that one of the biggest
complaints from the Windows side is the "c:" limitations. While windows
has had mount-points for quite a while, it's rarely used or understood
by windows admins. But it's there because IT MATTERS and makes life
simpler.

With linux you have one tree. That's it! No worrying about what device
your files are on. Programs are simpler; paths are simpler. 

> > in /etc/modules.conf (it's gone actually). No need
> > for /etc/X11/xorg.conf. We have a more unified hardware configuration
> > utility now in udev. I think that should be celebrated - not
> > criticized. 
> 
> Because xorg ignores my console keyboard settings, there's no way for it
> to know that I'm a dvorak typist unless I tell it explicitly.
> Furthermore, it's default swaps the physical locations of my monitors.
> Both issues must be fixed manually.

Again, they didn't take away the functionality of xorg.conf; it's simply
made so it's simpler to approach now. Nobody has to read xorg.conf man
pages just to get they keyboard connected.

> Furthermore, the xorg penguins have lost their heads just as the udev
> penguins have and, unless you basically shout at them in xorg.conf, they
> will ignore what you wrote there and lock you into a desktop with no
> keyboard or mouse input!!! There is supposed to be some kind of
> autodetection involving HAL but since

Ohhh with mails like yours I doubt that's the reason you don't get
answers. You KNOW the answers already - you're just complaining, yelling
and screaming. Why would anyone respond to THAT kind of inspiring
dialog?

> -- A: I don't need anything HAL does.
> -- B: I don't know how HAL works.
> and
> -- C: HAL is probably not documented just as most of the kernel and the
> rest of the system is not documented,

"probably" huh? You'll find that open source are some of the best
documented systems out there. At the very least you have access to the
source if everything else fails. The kernel most of all. But without
understanding the underlying technologies of a kernel, it's not going to
be understood by you. No level of explanations or links will fix that.

> I therefore removed and masked HAL from my system, and done everything I
> can think of to force xorg to basically behave as TRON did at the IO tower.

I'm beginning to think that sending you that DOS 6.22 ISO may actually
not work. It's not floppies and I have a feeling you've thrown out CD
drives and USB devices taking more than 1.44MB at a time.

> Use case:
> 
> Write out a plan to add an IDE HD to my computer. You know (will be
> given) all the relevant details of my system as it is now. You must
> write out the plan entirely before hand. It will be given to an idiot
> who will perform the steps exactly as specified. None of the steps may
> involve reading or reacting to the output of the system.

Find me an IDE (not SATA) disk, and I'll give you a reward. You're
killing your own argument though. If the premise is the computer already
has a working primary drive, you're assuming it's configured correct
already. That means that any additional drive automatically will be
assigned to sdb, sdc etc. You can do a lot of assumptions going in. And
if you're adding the second drive, you can easily tell your dummy to do
an pvcreate /dev/sdb and vgextend. Doing that does ALL the UUID for you.
Never have to be concerned or update /etc/fstab or anything. Neat huh?


> In the old scheme, that challenge would be a piece of cake.

Even simpler now.

> In the new system you must first *GUESS* (with scant evidence) which of
> the sd* devices your new drive is, and then adjust all of your plans
> accordingly. If the new drive displaced other drives in the system,
> you're SCREWED.... You have to go back and figure out where all of your
> drives are again and adjust your fstab accordingly.

No fstab change needed - unless you want to introduce new mount points.
Again, learn how to use the tools that are there to make things easier
for you. 

> SHOW ME THE DOCS!!!
> I need to know exactly how it works, with no detail omitted.

You've been given the links over and over again. You refuse, and have
described CLEARLY that you're not interested in learning how things are
done now. You want things to work like they did in the 1980s - well,
you'll need a time-machine for that, and not even Linux can help you
there I'm sorry to say.

> > Nobody is forcing you to do anything. But it's a little hard to take
> > complaints seriously about a technology, when you refuse to learn about
> > it first.
> 
> SHOW ME THE DOCS!!! =|

Redundant. We've even thrown you a few fish but you still don't seem to
want to eat because the fish doesn't look exactly like the fish you ate
when you were 5 ... or so to speak.

> I'm sick to death of trying to figure stuff out on my own on my own
> computer with alegedly free software. I usually get it wrong and then
> get flamed when I go to explain what I think I've learned.

Case in point. You get flamed because you start out flaming, complaining
and lecturing when you obviously haven't got a clue. Ask a question, "be
nice". A simple: "I used to be able to easily know what my device nodes
were named/called to represent my hardware, but I'm unable to do that
with XYZ release of Linux - can anyone help me on what to do" would have
given you 10x the response you got, and all would have been
constructive. Instead you spread your poison and bad vibes by accusing a
whole community of "conspiracy" to just get back at you. You even sent
it to the kernel community as if they were in charge of the conspiracy
and you single handed had lured them and their dirty tricks. 

-- 
Best Regards
  Peter Larsen

Wise words of the day:
How should I know if it works?  That's what beta testers are for.  I
only coded it.
	-- Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://calypso.tux.org/pipermail/novalug/attachments/20100315/e47c75a9/attachment.bin