| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 29/09/2013 18:33, Dale wrote: |
| 3 |
>>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news. |
| 4 |
>>>> And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they are |
| 5 |
>>>> not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. |
| 6 |
>> If not, then what was it? You seem to know what it was that started it |
| 7 |
>> so why not share? |
| 8 |
>> |
| 9 |
> He already said it. Someone added a hard disk to a PDP-9 (or was it an 11?) |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Literally. It all traces back to that. In those days there was no such |
| 12 |
> thing as volume management or raid. If you added a (seriously expensive) |
| 13 |
> disk the only feasible way to get it's storage in the system was to |
| 14 |
> mount it as a separate volume. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> >From that one single action this entire mess of separate /usr arose as |
| 17 |
> folks discovered more and more reasons to consider it good and keep it |
| 18 |
> around |
| 19 |
> |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
That wasn't the question tho. My question wasn't about many years ago |
| 22 |
but who made the change that broke support for a seperate /usr with no |
| 23 |
init thingy. The change that happened in the past few years. |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
I think I got my answer already tho. Seems William Hubbs answered it |
| 26 |
but I plan to read his message again. Different thread tho. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
Dale |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
:-) :-) |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! |
Archives