| 1 |
> From: Alan McKinnon [mailto:alan.mckinnon@×××××.com] |
| 2 |
> Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:08 PM |
| 3 |
> |
| 4 |
> On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:56:52 +0700 |
| 5 |
> Pandu Poluan <pandu@××××××.info> wrote: |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> > In case you haven't noticed, since Windows 7 (or Vista, forget which) |
| 8 |
> > Microsoft has even went the distance of splitting between C: |
| 9 |
> > (analogous to /usr) and 'System Partition' (analogous to /). The boot |
| 10 |
> > process is actually handled by the 100ish MB 'System Partition' |
| 11 |
> > before being handed to C:. This will at least give SysAdmins a |
| 12 |
> > fighting chance of recovering a botched maintenance. (Note: Said |
| 13 |
> > behavior will only be visible if installing onto a clean hard disk. |
| 14 |
> > If there are partitions left over from previous Windows installs, |
| 15 |
> > Win7 will not create a separate 'System Partition') So, if Microsoft |
| 16 |
> > saw the light, why does Red Hat sunk into darkness instead? |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
> I'm not sure about Microsoft's motivations in what you describe. My first |
| 20 |
> reaction is that the Great Circle of IT Life is turning and MS are trying |
| 21 |
> something new for them. Whether it's applicable to us here as an |
| 22 |
illustration |
| 23 |
> remains to be seen - I know very little about Windows so can't even begin |
| 24 |
to |
| 25 |
> draw sensible parallels. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
I know little about the history of UNIX before 1993, and the sum of my |
| 28 |
experience with Linux is that I have never personally run into any case |
| 29 |
where I had a single /+/usr and regretted it, but I *have* encountered |
| 30 |
situations where I could not get /usr mounted and ended up merging it with |
| 31 |
/. FWIW, YMMV, etc. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
I can tell you that Pandu's analogy vis a vis Windows is a bit flawed. What |
| 34 |
Windows has done recently is (by default for clean installs) to split the |
| 35 |
boot loader and related bootstrap code into a separate partition from the |
| 36 |
actual operating system. Claiming that this is analogous to / and /usr is |
| 37 |
quite a stretch. It is much more accurate to make it analogous to / and |
| 38 |
/boot. The System Partition has no "Windows" files on it, just the |
| 39 |
equivalent to grub (and it's also used if you have BitLocker, to decrypt |
| 40 |
your boot partition). |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
Which, to me, means it has absolutely nothing to do with the current |
| 43 |
discussion one way or the other :) |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
--Mike |
Archives