| 1 |
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:54 +0800 |
| 2 |
Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> > That was the original reason for having / and /usr separate, and it |
| 5 |
> > dates back to the early 70s. The other reason that stems from that |
| 6 |
> > time period is the size of disks we had back then - they were tiny |
| 7 |
> > and often a minimal / was all that could really fit on the primary |
| 8 |
> > system drive. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I'm sorry, but I just can't let this one go. The reasons are |
| 11 |
> backwards. The limitation in free space was the original reason [1] |
| 12 |
> why / and /usr were separated. In fact, /usr was supposed to serve the |
| 13 |
> same purpose as /home - it was originally a directory for users. It's |
| 14 |
> only a quirk of history that served to keep most of the binaries in |
| 15 |
> /usr when the home directories were moved elsewhere to /home. |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> Long story short, Unix, too, has its share of old farts that are |
| 18 |
> unwilling to embrace change at anything faster than a glacier's pace. |
| 19 |
> Just ask the Plan 9 folks. |
| 20 |
> |
| 21 |
> [1] |
| 22 |
> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Well fair enough. This stuff is becoming more myth than fact as less |
| 25 |
and less people are around to remember how it really went. There may |
| 26 |
even have been to-ing and fro-ing moving bits around till Ken and |
| 27 |
Dennis settled on the eventual outcome in that post. |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
Either way, we still agree. A separate /usr is, *for the most part*, a |
| 30 |
tradition applied without much understanding of the reason (most |
| 31 |
traditions are exactly like this). Most people do not actually need |
| 32 |
it. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
Some people do need it and can clearly state why; I am not in that |
| 35 |
group. |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
-- |
| 38 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 39 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives