| 1 |
On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:35:58PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
| 2 |
> >> wrong analogy and it goes down from here. Really. |
| 3 |
> > Ohh, but they are inspired on YOUR analogy, so guess how wrong yours was. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> your trolling is weak. And since I never saw anything worth reading |
| 6 |
> posted by you, you are very close to plonk territory right now. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
If his analogies are weak, that's deliberate: to show that your analogy is just |
| 9 |
as weak. Irrespective of why /usr was first added, or that it was in fact what |
| 10 |
/home now is, it's proven useful in many contexts. That you don't accept that, |
| 11 |
won't convince anyone who's lived that truth. All you'll do is argue in circles |
| 12 |
about irrelevance. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> > The setup of a separate /usr on a networked system was used in amongst |
| 15 |
> > other places a few swedish universities. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> seperate /usr on network has been used in a lot of places. So what? Does |
| 18 |
> that prove anything? |
| 19 |
> Nope, it doesn't. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Er quite obviously it proves that a separate /usr can be useful. In fact so |
| 22 |
much so that all the benefits of the above setup are claimed by that god-awful |
| 23 |
"why split usr is broken because we are dumbasses who got kicked out of the |
| 24 |
kernel and think that userspace doesn't need stability" post, as if they never |
| 25 |
existed before, and could not exist without a rootfs/usr merge. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> Seriously, /var is a good candidate for a seperate partition. /usr is not. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
They both are. Not very convincing is it? |
| 30 |
Seriously, if you don't see the need for one, good for you. Just stop telling |
| 31 |
us what to think, will you? |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> >>>> too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. |
| 34 |
> >>> Too bad separate /usr is much older than initramfs. |
| 35 |
> >> too bad that initramfs and initrd are pretty good solutions to the |
| 36 |
> >> problem of hidden breakage caused by seperate /usr. |
| 37 |
> >> If you are smart enough to setup an nfs server, I suppose you are smart |
| 38 |
> >> enough to run dracut/genkernel&co. |
| 39 |
> > If you are smart enough to run "dracut/genkernel&co" I suppose you are |
| 40 |
> > smart enough to see the wrongness of your initial statement "too bad |
| 41 |
> > POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS." |
| 42 |
> |
| 43 |
> too bad I am right and you are and idiot. |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> Originally, the name "POSIX" referred to IEEE Std 1003.1-1988, released |
| 46 |
> in 1988. The family of POSIX standards is formally designated as IEEE |
| 47 |
> 1003 and the international standard name is ISO/IEC 9945. |
| 48 |
> The standards, formerly known as IEEE-IX, emerged from a project that |
| 49 |
> began circa 1985. Richard Stallman suggested the name POSIX to the IEEE. |
| 50 |
> The committee found it more easily pronounceable and memorable, so it |
| 51 |
> adopted it |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
> That is from wikipedia. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> 1985/1988. When were LSB/FHS created again? |
| 56 |
> |
| 57 |
> FHS in 1994. Hm.... |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
You really are obtuse. You should try to consider what *point* the other person |
| 60 |
is trying to make before you mouth off with "superior knowledge" that completely |
| 61 |
misses it. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
> *plonk* |
| 64 |
|
| 65 |
ditto. AFAIC you're the one who pulled insults out, when in fact you were |
| 66 |
*completely* missing the point. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
Bravo. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-) |
Archives