| 1 |
On 03/14/2012 19:27, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> On 03/14/12 18:49, Greg KH wrote: |
| 4 |
>> On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 06:39:05PM -0400, Richard Yao wrote: |
| 5 |
>>> With that said, I have a few questions: |
| 6 |
>>> |
| 7 |
>>> 1. Why does no one mention the enterprise use case at all? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
>> It has been pointed out before, why constantly repeat ourselves. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Simple. No one has documented it. A webpage that makes a few vague |
| 12 |
> references to "enterprise use" does not count as documentation. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> I happened to figure it out when trying to rationalize why anyone would |
| 15 |
> want this, but this is hardly obvious to those that imagine a computer |
| 16 |
> as a self-sufficient single disk system. |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
You'll also find a lot of enterprise-specific decisions went into IPv6, |
| 20 |
without necessarily stating them as being enterprise-specific. I.e., the |
| 21 |
requirement for Unique Local Addresses, which are IPv6's idea of RFC1918, |
| 22 |
required to be "globally-unique". When I quizzed someone about this one (I |
| 23 |
think it was on ServerFault somewhere), I was basically told that "IPv6 is |
| 24 |
not for home use". |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>>> 2. Why not make rootfs a NFS mount with a unionfs at the SAN/NAS device? |
| 28 |
>> |
| 29 |
>> unionfs is still a "work in progress", some systems can't do that yet. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> That sounds like something that needs to be fixed. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
I thought UnionFS died? Or was better handled by other "tricks" involving |
| 35 |
filesystem overlays? |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
>>> 3. Why not let the users choose where these directories go and support |
| 39 |
>>> both locations? |
| 40 |
>> |
| 41 |
>> Because a plethera of options is a sure way to make sure that half of |
| 42 |
>> them don't work over the long run. |
| 43 |
>> |
| 44 |
>> We aren't Debian here people, we don't support "everything" :) |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Gentoo provides far more options than Debian does, so this seems |
| 47 |
> somewhat contradictory to me. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
|
| 50 |
Agreed. Debian is focused on an entirely different model of building a |
| 51 |
Linux system, thus they have a narrower dependency chain and you sometimes |
| 52 |
have to include packages that you don't necessarily care for because they're |
| 53 |
required by a package that you do want to use. We have USE flags to resolve |
| 54 |
that issue. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
-- |
| 57 |
Joshua Kinard |
| 58 |
Gentoo/MIPS |
| 59 |
kumba@g.o |
| 60 |
4096R/D25D95E3 2011-03-28 |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
"The past tempts us, the present confuses us, the future frightens us. And |
| 63 |
our lives slip away, moment by moment, lost in that vast, terrible in-between." |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
--Emperor Turhan, Centauri Republic |
Archives