1 |
Am 01.10.2013 01:21, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike): |
2 |
> El 30/09/13 00:47, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió: |
3 |
>> Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike): |
4 |
>>> El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió: |
5 |
>>>> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury: |
6 |
>>>>> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
7 |
>>>>> |
8 |
>>>>>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not |
9 |
>>>>>> the root cause of the problem. |
10 |
>>>>>> |
11 |
>>>>>> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good |
12 |
>>>>>> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were |
13 |
>>>>>> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those |
14 |
>>>>>> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to |
15 |
>>>>>> blame too. |
16 |
>>>>>> |
17 |
>>>>>> Systemd is just another point in a very long list. |
18 |
>>>>>> |
19 |
>>>>> The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of |
20 |
>>>>> UNIX. Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain |
21 |
>>>>> things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, |
22 |
>>>>> the original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, |
23 |
>>>>> but other benefits continued to encourage a seperation between root |
24 |
>>>>> and usr. |
25 |
>>>>> |
26 |
>>>> in the very early days /usr did not exist in the first space and was |
27 |
>>>> only created because someone added a harddisk. |
28 |
>>>> |
29 |
>>>> Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
30 |
>>> I'm going to show the lack of sense of this argument: |
31 |
>>> in the very early days linux did not exist in the first space and was |
32 |
>>> only created because someone got a 386. |
33 |
>>> |
34 |
>>> Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
35 |
>> wrong analogy and it goes down from here. Really. |
36 |
> Ohh, but they are inspired on YOUR analogy, so guess how wrong yours was. |
37 |
|
38 |
your trolling is weak. And since I never saw anything worth reading |
39 |
posted by you, you are very close to plonk territory right now. |
40 |
|
41 |
>>> in the very early days GNU did not exist in the first space and was |
42 |
>>> only created because someone jammed a printer. |
43 |
>>> |
44 |
>>> Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
45 |
>>> |
46 |
>>> in the very early days Gentoo did not exist in the first space and was |
47 |
>>> only created because someone added a processor. |
48 |
>>> |
49 |
>>> Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
50 |
>>> |
51 |
>>> in the very early days hardening did not exist in the first space and was |
52 |
>>> only created because someone added security. |
53 |
>>> |
54 |
>>> Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
55 |
>>> |
56 |
>>> in the very early days Gnome did not exist in the first space and was |
57 |
>>> only created because someone got a graphics card. |
58 |
>>> |
59 |
>>> Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
60 |
>>> |
61 |
>>> I'm sure you'll be able to figure out the pattern there. |
62 |
>>> |
63 |
>>> Ohh and BTW, /usr was not just added because someone added a harddrive, |
64 |
>>> in most cases it was used to allow machines contain a very small system |
65 |
>>> on / which was enough to just boot and mount a networked system (/usr) |
66 |
>>> containing most of the software. This allowed for cheaper deployment of |
67 |
>>> machines since the hard drive could be smaller as it wouldn't need to |
68 |
>>> have all the data locally. Yeah, if this sounds familiar is because this |
69 |
>>> was later moved to initramfs. |
70 |
>> no, network'ed file systems came a lot later. |
71 |
>> Initially /usr was added because one harddisk was full. Really, that is |
72 |
>> the whole reason for its (broken) existance. |
73 |
> Please provide some reference about "Initially /usr was added because |
74 |
> one harddisk was full." without it your statement is moot to me. |
75 |
|
76 |
see Mark David Dumlao's mails. |
77 |
|
78 |
But it is interesting, that you are attacking others with your superior |
79 |
knowledge - and then show that you lack exactly that. You are talking |
80 |
about stuff you have no clue at all about. |
81 |
|
82 |
> |
83 |
> The setup of a separate /usr on a networked system was used in amongst |
84 |
> other places a few swedish universities. |
85 |
|
86 |
seperate /usr on network has been used in a lot of places. So what? Does |
87 |
that prove anything? |
88 |
Nope, it doesn't. |
89 |
|
90 |
>>>>> The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never |
91 |
>>>>> terribly big and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The home |
92 |
>>>>> filesystem became traditionally separate because data expands to fill |
93 |
>>>>> all availab;e space, and users collect *things* |
94 |
>>>> and a seperate /home does not create any problems. |
95 |
>>>> /var is much more prone to accidentally fill up then /usr ever was. |
96 |
>>> You are jst getting it wrong, /var was kept locally as the data there |
97 |
>>> was supposed to change from machine to machine. |
98 |
>> no, you just don't understand what I wrote. |
99 |
>> People told other people to keep /usr seperate so / may not fill up by |
100 |
>> accident. |
101 |
>> |
102 |
>> That advise always was murky at best. Outright stupid is a good |
103 |
>> description too. |
104 |
>> |
105 |
>> /usr is not prone to much changes. So if your / fits the contents of |
106 |
>> /usr just fine, there is pretty much no risk. |
107 |
>> /var on the other hand tends to explode - but a lot of people never got |
108 |
>> told to put /var on a seperate disk. |
109 |
>> |
110 |
>> If you ever realized that a tens of gigabyte logfile just made your box |
111 |
>> unbootable, you learnt a lot that day. |
112 |
> That's why you move /var/log, not /var |
113 |
|
114 |
then /var/portage |
115 |
/var/package |
116 |
/var/tmp |
117 |
/var/spool |
118 |
or |
119 |
/var/lib |
120 |
|
121 |
explodes in size and takes out your box. |
122 |
|
123 |
Seriously, /var is a good candidate for a seperate partition. /usr is not. |
124 |
|
125 |
>>>>> Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and |
126 |
>>>>> diskless worstations ruled for a while as well. |
127 |
>>>>> |
128 |
>>>>> By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes to |
129 |
>>>>> not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three |
130 |
>>>>> filesystem layout was common and workable. As Linux continued to be |
131 |
>>>>> like Topsy (she jest growed!) fragmentation started to occur as |
132 |
>>>>> "distributions" arose. The "balkanization" of Linux distributions |
133 |
>>>>> became a real concern to some and standardization offorts were |
134 |
>>>>> encouraged. |
135 |
>>>>> |
136 |
>>>>> The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem |
137 |
>>>>> Hierarch Standard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V |
138 |
>>>>> definitions (which called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX added |
139 |
>>>>> more layers and attempted to bring in the various BSD flavors. |
140 |
>>>>> |
141 |
>>>>> THe LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as supersceeding |
142 |
>>>>> all the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet |
143 |
>>>>> even then a separate root and usr distinction survived. Then things |
144 |
>>>>> started falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the |
145 |
>>>>> Windows/wintel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The |
146 |
>>>>> fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted |
147 |
>>>>> and certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations. |
148 |
>>>> too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. |
149 |
>>> Too bad separate /usr is much older than initramfs. |
150 |
>> too bad that initramfs and initrd are pretty good solutions to the |
151 |
>> problem of hidden breakage caused by seperate /usr. |
152 |
>> If you are smart enough to setup an nfs server, I suppose you are smart |
153 |
>> enough to run dracut/genkernel&co. |
154 |
> If you are smart enough to run "dracut/genkernel&co" I suppose you are |
155 |
> smart enough to see the wrongness of your initial statement "too bad |
156 |
> POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS." |
157 |
|
158 |
too bad I am right and you are and idiot. |
159 |
|
160 |
Originally, the name "POSIX" referred to IEEE Std 1003.1-1988, released |
161 |
in 1988. The family of POSIX standards is formally designated as IEEE |
162 |
1003 and the international standard name is ISO/IEC 9945. |
163 |
The standards, formerly known as IEEE-IX, emerged from a project that |
164 |
began circa 1985. Richard Stallman suggested the name POSIX to the IEEE. |
165 |
The committee found it more easily pronounceable and memorable, so it |
166 |
adopted it |
167 |
|
168 |
That is from wikipedia. |
169 |
|
170 |
1985/1988. When were LSB/FHS created again? |
171 |
|
172 |
FHS in 1994. Hm.... |
173 |
|
174 |
|
175 |
>>>>> As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army |
176 |
>>>>> marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broke |
177 |
>>>>> off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain |
178 |
>>>>> flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks. |
179 |
>>>>> |
180 |
>>>>> It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of |
181 |
>>>>> the root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME |
182 |
>>>>> camp. |
183 |
>>>>> These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" |
184 |
>>>>> Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler |
185 |
>>>>> explanation. |
186 |
>>>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. |
187 |
>>>> And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are |
188 |
>>>> not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. |
189 |
>>> True, fingers here should be pointed into another direction like systemd. |
190 |
>> systemd is not the first package to break. |
191 |
> udev is a part of systemd |
192 |
|
193 |
so what? |
194 |
|
195 |
>>>>> To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required |
196 |
>>>>> for good "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge. |
197 |
>>>> what? that you need an initrd? That is so bad? |
198 |
>>> It may be, there is people which may not have enough free space ob /boot |
199 |
>>> for example. |
200 |
>> and now we are deeply into kidding territory. How small is that boot? 3mb? |
201 |
> Maybe, I know of Gentoo users running on really old Pentium IIs with |
202 |
> SCSI disks, so it wouldn't come as a surprise. |
203 |
|
204 |
I have really old scsi disks. 15k rpm U160/U320 ones. 37GB each. Way |
205 |
then more enough room to store / with /usr in it. / in my system is a 64 |
206 |
gb disk. |
207 |
|
208 |
Even P2 can stomach 80/120gb harddisks. You know the crap you get almost |
209 |
for free on ebay. |
210 |
|
211 |
And if you have a really small harddisk, seperating /boot is just stupid |
212 |
anyway. So you have all of / to store your vmlinuz file and the |
213 |
init'thingie'. |
214 |
|
215 |
>>>> Are you kidding me? |
216 |
>>> I doubt it, instead you seem to be just trolling, see your own arguments |
217 |
>> well, I haven't seen any arguments from you so far. So who is the troll |
218 |
>> again? |
219 |
> You have kindly disregarded them... like trolls tend to do, |
220 |
|
221 |
hm, lets see - I have facts on my side and you are insulting me. Who is |
222 |
the troll again? |
223 |
|
224 |
>>>>> [PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and |
225 |
>>>>> Biological Science. and I can expand on the parallels if so desired. |
226 |
>>>>> |
227 |
>>>> no thank you. But if I might add one: you are making an elephant out of |
228 |
>>>> a gnat. |
229 |
>>> To me it looks like youu are making a gnat out of an elephant. |
230 |
>> what is the elephant? Running an extra command on kernel updates? |
231 |
> Requiring users to repartition systems with the downtime that carries, |
232 |
> for example. |
233 |
You don't need to repartition your system AT ALL. All you have to do is |
234 |
to create an init 'thingie'. Genkernel can do that for you. You are done. |
235 |
|
236 |
Seriously, you just convinced me. You ARE a mouth breather. |
237 |
|
238 |
And I am not answering to your crap anymore. It my be contagious. |
239 |
|
240 |
*plonk* |