On Mon, 12 Sep 2011 08:31:09 PM Alan Mackenzie wrote: > On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 03:35:19PM -0400, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: > > > I read that page. I understand the problem. I'm not convinced. > > > > I can respect that. I can only then say that we must agree to > > disagree, because I also understand the problem, and I am convinced. > > > > But what you guys don't seem to realize is that /lib and /bin and > > /sbin was the original hack: everything really should go into /usr, > > because now (with an initramfs) we can do what we were not able 30 > > years ago. We not need anything in /, really. > > They could have put everything on /usr 30 years ago, if they'd have seen > fit. They saw then good reason not to. What you and KS seem oblivious > to is the reason for /bin, /sbin. It is to allow a small boot so as to > permit system maintenance - fsck, resizing or moving partions, even > undeleting files - all these things are difficult, or even impossible > perhaps, if the pertinent partition is mounted. To pretend otherwise is > disingenuous. > > > Regards.
Of course, nowdays you can do the maintanence from a bootable CD or a minimal shell running from within an initramfs, so that problem has multiple solutions. My major worry is that udev is happily running arbitrary scripts from arbitrary locations early in the boot process, and is actively trying to make this easier. How much more Microsoft-security-ish do we want Linux to get? -- Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC. http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. Then, when you do, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.
