1 |
On 18/08/2013 08:40, Stroller wrote: |
2 |
> |
3 |
> On 17 August 2013, at 12:49, Dan Johansson wrote: |
4 |
>> ... |
5 |
>>>>> The usr-merge will be a slow, gradual change; it will probably take |
6 |
>>>>> years. The systemd package entered the tree in June 2011, after more |
7 |
>>>>> than a year in an overlay, and then it took more than two years to |
8 |
>>>>> make it an official alternative to OpenRC. The /usr merge will take a |
9 |
>>>>> similar amount of time, if not longer. |
10 |
>>>>> |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> And when we are at it, why not rename '/' to 'C:\' ? |
13 |
> |
14 |
> Well, seriously, why not? |
15 |
> |
16 |
> You haven't made any arguments against putting everything on a single partition, just made a cheap "lolz, micro$oft windoze" analogy. |
17 |
> |
18 |
> I can understand wanting to put /home on a separate partition or /var/spool/mail or /var/www/sites but I don't understand this obsession with several different partitions for system files which are always going to be managed by portage and which I'm never going to move or mess with manually. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> Having /usr on a separate partition dates back to an era in which 10MB and 40MB harddisks were prohibitively expensive - they cost $1000s. |
21 |
> |
22 |
> Now we can host a complete Gentoo system on a $5 or $10 SDcard, I'm struggling to see the value. |
23 |
|
24 |
I agree. |
25 |
|
26 |
You've read that post to an embedded list that lays out clearly why this |
27 |
/usr thing happened, right? I see computer files falling in two large |
28 |
categories - the system and data. Portage manages the system, I only |
29 |
need to ensure there's enough space. The data is mine and I may well |
30 |
have very different needs for different parts - the fs settings for the |
31 |
portage tree definitely don't work well for my media store with 4G |
32 |
BluRay rips! |
33 |
|
34 |
While we're on the topic, what's the obsession with having different |
35 |
bits of the file hierarchy as different *mount points*? That harks back |
36 |
to the days when the only way to have a chunk of fs space be different |
37 |
was to have it as a separate physical thing and mount it. Nowadays we |
38 |
have something better - ZFS. To me this makes so much more sense. I have |
39 |
a large amount of storage called a pool, and set size limits and |
40 |
characteristics for various directories without having to deal with |
41 |
fixed size volumes. |
42 |
|
43 |
There's LVM of course which makes things far easier than not having LVM, |
44 |
but by $DEITY, it forces me to think of my storage in terms of 4 |
45 |
distinctly different layers = far too complex (even though the clever |
46 |
design appeals to my inner nerd). |
47 |
|
48 |
I can think of only one modern use case where a separate /usr is |
49 |
desirable - as a read-only NFS mount for terminal servers. But that is |
50 |
already a large complex setup, very stable and not changing much, |
51 |
usually with an admin, so a boot environment with an initramfs shouldn't |
52 |
be any real burden at all. |
53 |
|
54 |
|
55 |
-- |
56 |
Alan McKinnon |
57 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |