Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01

[Dale]

Bruce Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:48:11AM -0400, Greg Woodbury wrote:
>> To answer Alan's question - the main fault lies on the GNOME project and
>> the forcing for systemd down user's systems throats.
>>
>> Additionally, as certina things were added to Linux to "enhance"
>> capabilities, the GNOME developers (apparently) *deliberately* placed
>> the programs in /usr/bin, instead of in the generally accepted place of
>> /bin.
>>
>> Alan is correct - there is a deliberate cause of this debacle.  Certain
>> folks (Lennart being one of many) *are* cramming their vision of Linux
>> on the whole community.
>>
>> I have read severl folks defending their ignoring of the old protocol of
>> placing boot-required programs in /bin (and hence on root) as being
>> holdovers from "ancient history" and claiming that disk space is so
>> cheap these days that it "isn't necessary" to keep this distinction.
>>
>> As a result of the GNOMEish forcing, some distros have even gone so far
>> as to *do away* with /bin - and have placed everything in /usr/bin with
>> compatibility symlinks as a holdover/workaround.
>>
>> I lay this at the feet of GNOME, and thus, at the feet of RedHat.
>>
>> Linux used to be about *choice*  aand leaving up to the users/admins
>> about how they wanted to configure their systems.  But certain forces in
>> the Linux marketplace are hell-bent on imitating Microsoft's "one way to
>> do it" thinking that they are outdoing the "evil empire's" evilness.
>>
>> I fully understand systemd and see that it is a solution seeking a
>> problem to solve.  And its developers, being nearly identical with the
>> set of GNOME developers, are forcing this *thing* on the Linux universe.
>>
>> Certainly, the SystemV init system needed to have a way of
>> *automagically/automatically* handling a wider set of dependencies. When
>> we wrote if for System IV at Bell Labs in 1981 or so, we didn't have the
>> time to solve the problem of having the computer handle the dependencies
>> and moved the handling out to the human mind to solve by setting the
>> numerical sequence numbers.  (I was one of the writers for System IV
>> init while a contractor.)
>>
>> OpenRC provided a highly compatible and organic extension of the system,
>> and Gentoo has been happy for severl years with it.  But now, the same
>> folks who are thrusting GNOME/systemd down the throats of systems
>> everywhere, have invaded or gained converts enought in the Gentoo
>> structure to try and force their way on Gentoo.
>>
>> Gentoo may be flexible enough to allow someone to write an overlay that
>> moves the necessary things back to /bin (and install symlinks from
>> /usr/bin to /bin) so that an initrd/initramfs is not required.  But I
>> suspect that Gentoo and many distributions are too far gone down the
>> path of deception to recover.
>>
>> Neil and other may disagree with this assessment, but I saw it coming
>> and this is not the first time it has been pointed out - and not just by me.
>>
>> Who knows though? I may just have to abandon prepared distributions
>> completely and do a Linux From Scratch solution, or fork some distro and
>> tey to undo the worst of the damage.
>>
>> --
>> G.Wolfe Woodbury
>> redwolfe@×××××.com
> And that, folks, is the best and most accurate summary I've read to date.
>
> Thank you, sir, for stepping up to the plate.
>
> A friend of mine has his own Linux distro (has for a long time), and explained
> this to me some time ago. He's not effected by this.
>
> Bruce

Name that distro please.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!