El 30/09/13 00:47, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió: > Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike): >> El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió: >>> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury: >>>> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not >>>>> the root cause of the problem. >>>>> >>>>> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good >>>>> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were >>>>> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those >>>>> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to >>>>> blame too. >>>>> >>>>> Systemd is just another point in a very long list. >>>>> >>>> The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of >>>> UNIX. Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain >>>> things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, >>>> the original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, >>>> but other benefits continued to encourage a seperation between root >>>> and usr. >>>> >>> in the very early days /usr did not exist in the first space and was >>> only created because someone added a harddisk. >>> >>> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> I'm going to show the lack of sense of this argument: >> in the very early days linux did not exist in the first space and was >> only created because someone got a 386. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. > wrong analogy and it goes down from here. Really. Ohh, but they are inspired on YOUR analogy, so guess how wrong yours was. >> in the very early days GNU did not exist in the first space and was >> only created because someone jammed a printer. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> >> in the very early days Gentoo did not exist in the first space and was >> only created because someone added a processor. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> >> in the very early days hardening did not exist in the first space and was >> only created because someone added security. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> >> in the very early days Gnome did not exist in the first space and was >> only created because someone got a graphics card. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> >> I'm sure you'll be able to figure out the pattern there. >> >> Ohh and BTW, /usr was not just added because someone added a harddrive, >> in most cases it was used to allow machines contain a very small system >> on / which was enough to just boot and mount a networked system (/usr) >> containing most of the software. This allowed for cheaper deployment of >> machines since the hard drive could be smaller as it wouldn't need to >> have all the data locally. Yeah, if this sounds familiar is because this >> was later moved to initramfs. > no, network'ed file systems came a lot later. > Initially /usr was added because one harddisk was full. Really, that is > the whole reason for its (broken) existance. Please provide some reference about "Initially /usr was added because one harddisk was full." without it your statement is moot to me.
The setup of a separate /usr on a networked system was used in amongst other places a few swedish universities. >>>> The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never >>>> terribly big and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The home >>>> filesystem became traditionally separate because data expands to fill >>>> all availab;e space, and users collect *things* >>> and a seperate /home does not create any problems. >>> /var is much more prone to accidentally fill up then /usr ever was. >> You are jst getting it wrong, /var was kept locally as the data there >> was supposed to change from machine to machine. > no, you just don't understand what I wrote. > People told other people to keep /usr seperate so / may not fill up by > accident. > > That advise always was murky at best. Outright stupid is a good > description too. > > /usr is not prone to much changes. So if your / fits the contents of > /usr just fine, there is pretty much no risk. > /var on the other hand tends to explode - but a lot of people never got > told to put /var on a seperate disk. > > If you ever realized that a tens of gigabyte logfile just made your box > unbootable, you learnt a lot that day. That's why you move /var/log, not /var >>>> Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and >>>> diskless worstations ruled for a while as well. >>>> >>>> By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes to >>>> not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three >>>> filesystem layout was common and workable. As Linux continued to be >>>> like Topsy (she jest growed!) fragmentation started to occur as >>>> "distributions" arose. The "balkanization" of Linux distributions >>>> became a real concern to some and standardization offorts were >>>> encouraged. >>>> >>>> The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem >>>> Hierarch Standard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V >>>> definitions (which called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX added >>>> more layers and attempted to bring in the various BSD flavors. >>>> >>>> THe LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as supersceeding >>>> all the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet >>>> even then a separate root and usr distinction survived. Then things >>>> started falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the >>>> Windows/wintel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The >>>> fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted >>>> and certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations. >>> too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. >> Too bad separate /usr is much older than initramfs. > too bad that initramfs and initrd are pretty good solutions to the > problem of hidden breakage caused by seperate /usr. > If you are smart enough to setup an nfs server, I suppose you are smart > enough to run dracut/genkernel&co. If you are smart enough to run "dracut/genkernel&co" I suppose you are smart enough to see the wrongness of your initial statement "too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS." >>>> As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army >>>> marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broke >>>> off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain >>>> flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks. >>>> >>>> It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of >>>> the root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME >>>> camp. >>>> These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" >>>> Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler >>>> explanation. >>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. >>> And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are >>> not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. >> True, fingers here should be pointed into another direction like systemd. > systemd is not the first package to break. udev is a part of systemd >>>> To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required >>>> for good "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge. >>> what? that you need an initrd? That is so bad? >> It may be, there is people which may not have enough free space ob /boot >> for example. > and now we are deeply into kidding territory. How small is that boot? 3mb? Maybe, I know of Gentoo users running on really old Pentium IIs with SCSI disks, so it wouldn't come as a surprise. >>> Are you kidding me? >> I doubt it, instead you seem to be just trolling, see your own arguments > well, I haven't seen any arguments from you so far. So who is the troll > again? You have kindly disregarded them... like trolls tend to do, >>>> [PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and >>>> Biological Science. and I can expand on the parallels if so desired. >>>> >>> no thank you. But if I might add one: you are making an elephant out of >>> a gnat. >> To me it looks like youu are making a gnat out of an elephant. > what is the elephant? Running an extra command on kernel updates? Requiring users to repartition systems with the downtime that carries, for example.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
