1 |
El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribió: |
2 |
> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury: |
3 |
>> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: |
4 |
>> |
5 |
>>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not |
6 |
>>> the root cause of the problem. |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good |
9 |
>>> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were |
10 |
>>> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those |
11 |
>>> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to |
12 |
>>> blame too. |
13 |
>>> |
14 |
>>> Systemd is just another point in a very long list. |
15 |
>>> |
16 |
>> The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of |
17 |
>> UNIX. Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain |
18 |
>> things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, |
19 |
>> the original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, |
20 |
>> but other benefits continued to encourage a seperation between root |
21 |
>> and usr. |
22 |
>> |
23 |
> in the very early days /usr did not exist in the first space and was |
24 |
> only created because someone added a harddisk. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
27 |
I'm going to show the lack of sense of this argument: |
28 |
in the very early days linux did not exist in the first space and was |
29 |
only created because someone got a 386. |
30 |
|
31 |
Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
32 |
|
33 |
in the very early days GNU did not exist in the first space and was |
34 |
only created because someone jammed a printer. |
35 |
|
36 |
Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
37 |
|
38 |
in the very early days Gentoo did not exist in the first space and was |
39 |
only created because someone added a processor. |
40 |
|
41 |
Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
42 |
|
43 |
in the very early days hardening did not exist in the first space and was |
44 |
only created because someone added security. |
45 |
|
46 |
Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
47 |
|
48 |
in the very early days Gnome did not exist in the first space and was |
49 |
only created because someone got a graphics card. |
50 |
|
51 |
Not really a good reason to keep it around. |
52 |
|
53 |
I'm sure you'll be able to figure out the pattern there. |
54 |
|
55 |
Ohh and BTW, /usr was not just added because someone added a harddrive, |
56 |
in most cases it was used to allow machines contain a very small system |
57 |
on / which was enough to just boot and mount a networked system (/usr) |
58 |
containing most of the software. This allowed for cheaper deployment of |
59 |
machines since the hard drive could be smaller as it wouldn't need to |
60 |
have all the data locally. Yeah, if this sounds familiar is because this |
61 |
was later moved to initramfs. |
62 |
|
63 |
>> The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never |
64 |
>> terribly big and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The home |
65 |
>> filesystem became traditionally separate because data expands to fill |
66 |
>> all availab;e space, and users collect *things* |
67 |
> and a seperate /home does not create any problems. |
68 |
> /var is much more prone to accidentally fill up then /usr ever was. |
69 |
You are jst getting it wrong, /var was kept locally as the data there |
70 |
was supposed to change from machine to machine. |
71 |
>> Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and |
72 |
>> diskless worstations ruled for a while as well. |
73 |
>> |
74 |
>> By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes to |
75 |
>> not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three |
76 |
>> filesystem layout was common and workable. As Linux continued to be |
77 |
>> like Topsy (she jest growed!) fragmentation started to occur as |
78 |
>> "distributions" arose. The "balkanization" of Linux distributions |
79 |
>> became a real concern to some and standardization offorts were |
80 |
>> encouraged. |
81 |
>> |
82 |
>> The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem |
83 |
>> Hierarch Standard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V |
84 |
>> definitions (which called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX added |
85 |
>> more layers and attempted to bring in the various BSD flavors. |
86 |
>> |
87 |
>> THe LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as supersceeding |
88 |
>> all the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet |
89 |
>> even then a separate root and usr distinction survived. Then things |
90 |
>> started falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the |
91 |
>> Windows/wintel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The |
92 |
>> fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted |
93 |
>> and certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations. |
94 |
> too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. |
95 |
Too bad separate /usr is much older than initramfs. |
96 |
>> As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army |
97 |
>> marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broke |
98 |
>> off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain |
99 |
>> flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks. |
100 |
>> |
101 |
>> It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of |
102 |
>> the root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME |
103 |
>> camp. |
104 |
>> These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" |
105 |
>> Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler |
106 |
>> explanation. |
107 |
> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. |
108 |
> And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are |
109 |
> not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. |
110 |
True, fingers here should be pointed into another direction like systemd. |
111 |
>> To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required |
112 |
>> for good "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge. |
113 |
> what? that you need an initrd? That is so bad? |
114 |
It may be, there is people which may not have enough free space ob /boot |
115 |
for example. |
116 |
> Are you kidding me? |
117 |
I doubt it, instead you seem to be just trolling, see your own arguments |
118 |
>> [PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and |
119 |
>> Biological Science. and I can expand on the parallels if so desired. |
120 |
>> |
121 |
> no thank you. But if I might add one: you are making an elephant out of |
122 |
> a gnat. |
123 |
To me it looks like youu are making a gnat out of an elephant. |