RedShift schrieb:
/proc and /sys are already hardcoded. About your system being broken without these filesystems mounted: - SSH (both server and client) won't work without devpts mounted - None of the virtual X terminal things will work without devpts mounted
It doesn't prevent the system from booting and having a working virtual console. So people can fix it if they decided to mess with the default entries in fstab.
That's correct.
You guys just don't get it. This is about _principle_.
YOUR principle.
And its not because there already are some filesystems hardcoded, that the rest should be.
I'm not talking about "the rest", I'm talking about things that are mandatory for basic system operation.
In fact, these should be moved from hardcoding to fstab. But that will probably never happen.
You're right, it won't, because it is impossible. If you would care to even read rc.sysinit, you would know why.
Wether these are "virtual" or "real" filesystems, it doesn't matter: the fs in fstab stands for FileSystem, period. If something needs to be mounted, it should go there.
Says you?
This is exactly as what happened with the lo moving to rc.sysinit, hiding stuff so the newbies won't remove it because they think they don't need it. And the fact is, if you remove lo from the system, you can *still* boot your system and most stuff works without lo. So they can still fix lo if they removed it.
This is not about hiding things, it is about keeping it simple. What is simple about having to configure something that everybody needs, always needs it and will break everything if it is configured differently? It is unnecessary to even be able to configure it. So simplicity tells me to hardcode it.
I'm sick and tired of complaining about issues like these, that shouldn't be discussed in the first place. Do you think I like complaining?
Then don't complain, I'm sick of it. These changes do not decrease your flexibility, nor do they break anything. Believe me, I am all against changes that remove control from the user. But this is about things a user doesn't have to control, doesn't even want to control. What I want is a system that is flexible on the one hand, robust and unbreakable on the other hand. The 'lo' change (as well as the devpts change) is about increasing robustness without removing any flexibility. I cannot see how this is not a good thing.
Since when do we assume the user is stupid? All that's been accomplished here is create a big mess.
This is rule number one of development, always assume the user is stupid. The result of that is, that I have less emails with complaints to answer, less forum posts to unbreak user's systems, one less bugreport to close. It essentially means that I have more time doing things that actually benefit the Arch community.