Gentoo Archives: gentoo-user

From: Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@××××××××.uk>
To: gentoo-user@l.g.o
Subject: Re: Should /usr be merged with /? (Was: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?)
Date: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 14:12:49
Message-Id: 20121230140848.42068bc2@kc-sys.chadwicks.me.uk
In Reply to: Re: Should /usr be merged with /? (Was: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?) by Mark David Dumlao
1 On Sun, 30 Dec 2012 20:19:44 +0800
2 Mark David Dumlao <madumlao@×××××.com> wrote:
3
4 > > I'd certainly be happy "fixing" FHS to say that tools for mounting
5 > > and recovering "essential system partitions" be located in /, and
6 > > that these "essential system partitions" contain the tools for
7 > > mounting and recovering non-essential partitions.
8 >
9 > The beef with the comment on /home being nonessential is besides the
10 > point, /usr, /var, or /opt could have been some special case FUSE
11 > filesystem, making it still impossible to predict which files _should_
12 > be in /. The more relevant matter here is that plan FHS, in
13 > combination with FUSE, makes that difficult.
14
15 That's not best practice though is it and I completely disagree with the
16 rules you seem to believe the english language has too.
17
18 It is not a difficult problem, just FUSE is not expected or intended
19 for that, if that changes it is easily fixed immediately by the admin
20 or by the packager preferably in concert with some root management body
21 or project.
22
23 Many/All of these issues that have come up are actually of 0 effect, we
24 are not talking about preventing users from merging them as most Linux
25 users do because they just hit ok ok ok in ubuntus installation but
26 about a major degradation due to some devs whim and without I might add
27 proper community involvement or commentry ALLOWED. One things for sure
28 real problems will arise directly due to this merge if this merge
29 becomes standard and possibly with won't fixes used leading to
30 pointlessly breaking existing servers and linux becoming even more of an
31 unorganised mess.
32
33 On windows production machines I arrived at putting c: on it's own
34 smaller partition and program files on a larger partition. It meant I
35 could have many more c: backups and restore much more quickly too
36 resulting in much higher uptime and reduced loss in the cases that
37 registry restore wasn't good enough and system restore is crap. With
38 windows 7 it's not so beneficial as windows 7 is huge but still useful
39 as everything is getting huge on windows these days. You do get the
40 occasional dumb program perhaps fixable with a drive link within c:.
41
42 Windows 8 should be more reliable but I expect brings new issues in this
43 area due to app restrictions and where sandboxing could have been used
44 for security instead.