1 |
Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury: |
2 |
> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not |
5 |
>> the root cause of the problem. |
6 |
>> |
7 |
>> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good |
8 |
>> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were |
9 |
>> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those |
10 |
>> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to |
11 |
>> blame too. |
12 |
>> |
13 |
>> Systemd is just another point in a very long list. |
14 |
>> |
15 |
> The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of |
16 |
> UNIX. Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain |
17 |
> things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, |
18 |
> the original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, |
19 |
> but other benefits continued to encourage a seperation between root |
20 |
> and usr. |
21 |
> |
22 |
|
23 |
in the very early days /usr did not exist in the first space and was |
24 |
only created because someone added a harddisk. |
25 |
|
26 |
Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
27 |
|
28 |
> The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never |
29 |
> terribly big and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The home |
30 |
> filesystem became traditionally separate because data expands to fill |
31 |
> all availab;e space, and users collect *things* |
32 |
|
33 |
and a seperate /home does not create any problems. |
34 |
/var is much more prone to accidentally fill up then /usr ever was. |
35 |
|
36 |
> Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and |
37 |
> diskless worstations ruled for a while as well. |
38 |
> |
39 |
> By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes to |
40 |
> not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three |
41 |
> filesystem layout was common and workable. As Linux continued to be |
42 |
> like Topsy (she jest growed!) fragmentation started to occur as |
43 |
> "distributions" arose. The "balkanization" of Linux distributions |
44 |
> became a real concern to some and standardization offorts were |
45 |
> encouraged. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem |
48 |
> Hierarch Standard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V |
49 |
> definitions (which called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX added |
50 |
> more layers and attempted to bring in the various BSD flavors. |
51 |
> |
52 |
> THe LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as supersceeding |
53 |
> all the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet |
54 |
> even then a separate root and usr distinction survived. Then things |
55 |
> started falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the |
56 |
> Windows/wintel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The |
57 |
> fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted |
58 |
> and certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations. |
59 |
|
60 |
too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. |
61 |
|
62 |
> |
63 |
> As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army |
64 |
> marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broke |
65 |
> off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain |
66 |
> flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks. |
67 |
> |
68 |
> It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of |
69 |
> the root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME |
70 |
> camp. |
71 |
> These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" |
72 |
> Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler |
73 |
> explanation. |
74 |
|
75 |
that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. |
76 |
And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are |
77 |
not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. |
78 |
|
79 |
> |
80 |
> |
81 |
> To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required |
82 |
> for good "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge. |
83 |
> |
84 |
|
85 |
what? that you need an initrd? That is so bad? |
86 |
|
87 |
Are you kidding me? |
88 |
> |
89 |
> [PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and |
90 |
> Biological Science. and I can expand on the parallels if so desired. |
91 |
> |
92 |
no thank you. But if I might add one: you are making an elephant out of |
93 |
a gnat. |