On Fri, Oct 11, 2013 at 09:50:05AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 11/10/2013 09:54, Steven J. Long wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 30, 2013 at 12:04:38AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> On 29/09/2013 23:41, Dale wrote: > >>> Alan McKinnon wrote: > >>>> >From that one single action this entire mess of separate /usr arose as > >>>> folks discovered more and more reasons to consider it good and keep it > >>>> around > > > > Yes you elide over that part, but it's central: there were more and more > > reasons to consider it good, and to use it. You said it. > > <snip>
> >> It has always been broken by > >> design becuase it's a damn stupid idea that just happened to work by > >> fluke. > > > > *cough* bullsh1t. > > > >> IT and computing is rife with this kind of error. > > > > Indeed: and even more rife with a history of One True Way. So much so > > that it's a cliche. Somehow it's now seen as "hip" to be crap at your > > craft, unable to recognise an ABI, and cool to subscribe to "N + 1" > > True Way, as that's an "innovation" on the old form of garbage. > > > > And yet GIGO will still apply, traditional as it may be. > > I have no idea what you are trying to communicate or accomplish with this. Oh my bad, I thought this was an informal discussion. On a formal level, I was correcting your assumption, presented as a fact, that the only reason root and /usr split has worked in the past is some sort of fluke. Further your conflation of basic errors in software design with a "solution" to anything at all: the same problems still go on wrt initramfs, only now the effort is fractured into polarised camps. > All I see in all your responses is that you are railing against why > things are no longer the way they used to be. That's just casting aspersions, so I'll treat it as beneath you. It's certainly beneath me. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
