Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim (was: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01)

[Greg Woodbury]

On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not
> the root cause of the problem.
>
> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good
> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were
> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those
> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to
> blame too.
>
> Systemd is just another point in a very long list.
>
The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of 
UNIX.  Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain 
things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, the 
original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, but 
other benefits continued to encourage a seperation between root and usr.

The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never terribly 
big and its inclusion on the root volume happened.  The home filesystem 
  became traditionally separate because data expands to fill all 
availab;e space, and users collect *things*

Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and 
diskless worstations ruled for a while as well.

By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes to 
not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three filesystem 
layout was common and workable.  As Linux continued to be like Topsy 
(she jest growed!) fragmentation started to occur as "distributions" 
arose.  The "balkanization" of Linux distributions became a real concern 
to some and standardization offorts were encouraged.

The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem Hierarch 
Standard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V 
definitions (which called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX added 
more layers and attempted to bring in the various BSD flavors.

THe LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as supersceeding all 
the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet even 
then a separate root and usr distinction survived.  Then things started 
falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the 
Windows/wintel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The 
fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted and 
certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations.

(Look out, there are some severely mixed metaphors coming and perhaps 
even some "allegory"  Bear with it and you should get the gist of my 
accusations.)

And now we are here.  There is no clear definition of what comprises 
this OS that is a Linux kernel and a largely GNU based user-land.  There 
are two major X-Windows based "Desktop Environments" and many less major 
DEs and Linux is seen as being "locked in a struggle" with the Microsoft 
OSs to "win the hearts and minds of the Users."

This is quite scary to many folks who depend on the success of Linux 
"winning" the so-called war.  One of the camps bent on wining the "war" 
is GNOME.  Despite much history and experience that shows that choice 
and freedom are NOT disadvantages, the mainline GNOME folks have charged 
ahead on their own in a direction that overrides user choice and seems 
bound and determined to "outdo" Microsoft at their own game.

As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered.  The main GNOME army 
marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broke 
off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain 
flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks.

It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of the 
root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME camp.
These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" 
Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler 
explanation.


I am NOT happy with the situation as it stands.  Efforts that I have 
made on behalf of the FOSS and Linux/GNU are no longer serving to 
benefit me and the others with whom I thought I shared aspirations.

I am an OS Agnostic/Atheist. I use what works to do what I need to do. 
My at-home network includes all four (or is that 3.5?) "consumer" OSes. 
I have spent quite a bit of effort to have them all work together, but 
forces seem to be in play that seem determined to "win at all costs" and 
enforce a computing monoculture.  Such a result is not a good thing. As 
with biological systems, monocultures are more vulnerable to 
interference and disease.  The evolution of differentiated organ systems 
in more complex (or "higher") forms of life is driven by the need to 
provide robustness and continued operation in the face of unknown 
challenges.

To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required for 
good "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge.


[PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and 
Biological Science.  and I can expand on the parallels if so desired.

-- 
G.Wolfe Woodbury
redwolfe@×××××.com