On Wednesday 02 November 2011 01:05, andre999 wrote: > No offense intended
None detected. ;-)= > but you don't see a slight advantage of not having > to mount a separate partition, and of sharing the space available on the > otherwise 2 separate partitions, particularly if the disk space is > somewhat limited ? If the diskspace is limited, there often is no available space to host a separate /usr. The old drive in my gateway was a 4G drive. There was One partition. ;-)= I do see the need to have all in one partition in many cases. But there is a diffenrece in having a need and require it. :-)= > Since you have read the reference, you didn't notice that the option of > separate partitions is _not_ precluded ? Some of the answers I got here suggested otherwize. if /usr needs to be mounted in order for the system to boot normally. Then have systemd mount it. I do see that there might be some problems involved in solving it. > However if one has / and /usr on the same partition, combining /bin, > /sbin, /usr/bin and /usr/sbin would certainly be a lot simpler than it > is now. Yes. I see that, and I see that it can be agood idea to merge /*bin with /usr/*bin > I never could understand why the complication of separate /bin and /sbin, I still feel that the daemon's executeable's belongs in sbin rather than bin. > and never appreciated the gymnastics of different commands with > the same name to handle root/non-root permissions for certain commands. I haven't noticed that. do you have an example? > To me, avoiding unnecessary complication by design is a big plus. Agreed. But don't throw the baby out with the water. ;-)= -- Johnny A. Solbu PGP key ID: 0xFA687324
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
