On 19-09-2011 19:19:12 -0400, Joshua Kinard wrote:
> >> Really, MacOS's filesystem layout is not something anyone in their right
> >> mind should deign to mimic/copy.
> > 
> > I didn't get that from either of the links you posted. Seems to me the
> > systemd developers are looking at the split as a host-specific / vs
> > host-independent /usr.
> 
> From:
> http://marc.info/?l=linux-hotplug&m=131206447302056&w=2
> 
> Kay Sievers writes:
> 
> > What's not needed today is stuff in /. We can think of /usr a /System.
> > The entire system is installed in one single directory, and that can
> > be mounted r/o, or even shared between many hosts/guest. The stuff on
> > the rootfs is always host-only then.
> 
> It is from this that I derive the concept of a few folks wanting everything
> in /usr, as-if to brand /usr the new / (where the 'old' / has just directory
> stubs and a few symlinks, maybe some minor bits in /etc).  That's also where
> my Mac comment stems from, in that /System hides most of the details of the
> BSD-nature of MacOS X, and tries to dissuade the user from ever having to go
> in there.

Not sure what you mean here.  An OSX system has /bin, /sbin, and
/usr/{bin,lib}.  What's in /Library and /System is typically what the OS
uses for its own "services" and graphical stuff.  So, /System doesn't
hide any BSD-nature to me.  It's true that a normal user really has
nothing to do in /System.


-- 
Fabian Groffen
Gentoo on a different level