| 1 |
On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 19:44:13 +0800 |
| 2 |
Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> >> http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html |
| 5 |
> > |
| 6 |
> > Well fair enough. This stuff is becoming more myth than fact as less |
| 7 |
> > and less people are around to remember how it really went. There may |
| 8 |
> > even have been to-ing and fro-ing moving bits around till Ken and |
| 9 |
> > Dennis settled on the eventual outcome in that post. |
| 10 |
> > |
| 11 |
> > Either way, we still agree. A separate /usr is, *for the most |
| 12 |
> > part*, a tradition applied without much understanding of the reason |
| 13 |
> > (most traditions are exactly like this). Most people do not |
| 14 |
> > actually need it. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> The sweet irony here is that Poettering - the cause for all this mess |
| 17 |
> - likely understood the logistics and rationale of the / and /usr |
| 18 |
> split better than most of his detractors - I'm pretty sure I landed on |
| 19 |
> that link by starting from one of his systemd tutorial pages, though I |
| 20 |
> can't exactly remember which one. Thankfully, I've never had to |
| 21 |
> maintain systems whose disks were small and low performing enough that |
| 22 |
> it actually mattered to separate / from /usr. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Yes indeed :-) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
The other sweet irony is that Lennart is quite often correct in what he |
| 27 |
sets out to solve. He is the human equivalent of "disruptive |
| 28 |
technology", but also has this knack of rubbing people up the wrong way |
| 29 |
(or at least creating a circumstance where people believe he has rubbed |
| 30 |
them up the wrong way). I have some measure of empathy for the man as I |
| 31 |
tend to do similar things in my own sphere |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 35 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives