[clug] /dev/snd permissions

Daniel Pittman daniel at rimspace.net
Mon Jul 5 03:53:58 MDT 2010

Eyal Lebedinsky <eyal at eyal.emu.id.au> writes:

> The OP (me) expected the upgrade to adjust what it needs. As a matter of
> fact I avoid fiddling with any settings manually and allow fedora to freely
> take care of business. It mostly does.

Well, that isn't too bad, then.  Um, and I realize it wasn't even remotely
clear, but I wasn't trying to blame /you/ for this mess, unless you happen
also to be a Fedora developer.

Not that I actually, y'know, said anything to give that impression outside my
own head.  Sorry.

Anyway, not quite the nice, clean, functional ten year old Debian install, but
not too shabby. :)


> I do appreciate that this is a real, difficult, problem. We need to move
> away from the plethora of config files towards a more portable way of
> describing what a user wants/needs and allow each package to use this as it
> needs.

The move to something like udev was really needed, now that we don't have the
same static systems we used to have.  I don't have a lot of fondness, myself,
for the GNOME developers approach to system management, however.

Much of it, like HAL / ConsoleKit, then on to udev / DeviceKit, seems to be
poorly thought out, unpolished work done without any end-user (or even
end-sysadmin-and-occasional-kernel-hacker) documentation on the assumption
that the distribution will sort it all out.

Then, a little later they throw it all away in favour of the next shiny! new!
wonderful! thing! — and, hello, devfs reninvented on a ramfs so we don't have
to use udev during system boot any more.

It would be nice if they could just get it right *before* it got released to a
million desktops, rather than afterwards.


Not that I am bitter or anything.

✣ Daniel Pittman            ✉ daniel at rimspace.net            ☎ +61 401 155 707
               ♽ made with 100 percent post-consumer electrons

More information about the linux mailing list