From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CA6421382BE for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:24:19 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 7C04E21C01C; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:24:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com (cdptpa-omtalb.mail.rr.com [75.180.132.120]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4366A21C01C for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:22:52 +0000 (UTC) X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.0 cv=b4MwE66x c=1 sm=0 a=YiB23sJcwfFEeGB7MePNFg==:17 a=HGOPLk93NxAA:10 a=ixx9hBPjmnEA:10 a=6WvLBrxrMboA:10 a=wPDyFdB5xvgA:10 a=Uxmo08gEHq4A:10 a=kj9zAlcOel0A:10 a=I_vGZgfvAAAA:8 a=I6ARKAaQGAwA:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=QN-jTBhkAAAA:8 a=ShwtT0FN6EVUvTr8QqAA:9 a=CjuIK1q_8ugA:10 a=MSl-tDqOz04A:10 a=1Ey5B3EzntkA:10 a=YiB23sJcwfFEeGB7MePNFg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Authenticated-User: X-Originating-IP: 142.196.222.217 Received: from [142.196.222.217] ([142.196.222.217:35893] helo=basement.kutulu.org) by cdptpa-oedge01.mail.rr.com (envelope-from ) (ecelerity 2.2.3.46 r()) with ESMTP id FF/6E-04255-B4467E05; Fri, 04 Jan 2013 23:22:51 +0000 Received: from localhost (basement.kutulu.org [127.0.0.1]) by basement.kutulu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A76C11200C for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:22:51 -0500 (EST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at kutulu.org Received: from basement.kutulu.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (basement.kutulu.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tsYmk6QCqupX for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:22:38 -0500 (EST) Received: from MIKEDESKTOP (173.221.47.98.nw.nuvox.net [173.221.47.98]) by basement.kutulu.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7B20211200B for ; Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:22:38 -0500 (EST) From: "Mike Edenfield" To: References: <50CB1942.3020900@gmail.com> <50CB4A3C.1030109@gmail.com> <50CB5406.7040404@gmail.com> <8738z7hgsa.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121216171043.71084070@khamul.example.com> <20121217104621.735bf43a@khamul.example.com> <20121218163332.7956f31a@khamul.example.com> <87txrd6pb3.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121223182037.1553813f@khamul.example.com> <87bodk7lb6.fsf@ist.utl.pt> <20121224085528.56f535ec@khamul.example.com> <50D85167.9060309@gmail.com> <20121224204817.335033c6@khamul.example.com> <20121228010732.02de2a7b@khamul.example.com> In-Reply-To: <20121228010732.02de2a7b@khamul.example.com> Subject: RE: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 18:22:37 -0500 Message-ID: <000601cdead2$62bbf7d0$2833e770$@kutulu.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 14.0 Thread-Index: AQIGhxq+2bdhUEbzouYLuLgRcLoweAIcxRATAQXP674CyLl1pwFiWpIrAqbeL4cBOd6ggwH6mhb/Aim1eM0CLoYtagKZx03yAU599/ACG4/2FAHAFyvOAr3f/NMBkIC/cgJOmhDKAgI9CtcB+0FW8wJnQ/islpZd26A= Content-Language: en-us X-Archives-Salt: f7a3ac9c-85f1-4da2-9c29-251182efebaa X-Archives-Hash: 3e9a8da58cb61cde6e88be5edf7f1c8f > From: Alan McKinnon [mailto:alan.mckinnon@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, December 27, 2012 6:08 PM > > On Tue, 25 Dec 2012 10:56:52 +0700 > Pandu Poluan wrote: > > > In case you haven't noticed, since Windows 7 (or Vista, forget which) > > Microsoft has even went the distance of splitting between C: > > (analogous to /usr) and 'System Partition' (analogous to /). The boot > > process is actually handled by the 100ish MB 'System Partition' > > before being handed to C:. This will at least give SysAdmins a > > fighting chance of recovering a botched maintenance. (Note: Said > > behavior will only be visible if installing onto a clean hard disk. > > If there are partitions left over from previous Windows installs, > > Win7 will not create a separate 'System Partition') So, if Microsoft > > saw the light, why does Red Hat sunk into darkness instead? > I'm not sure about Microsoft's motivations in what you describe. My first > reaction is that the Great Circle of IT Life is turning and MS are trying > something new for them. Whether it's applicable to us here as an illustration > remains to be seen - I know very little about Windows so can't even begin to > draw sensible parallels. I know little about the history of UNIX before 1993, and the sum of my experience with Linux is that I have never personally run into any case where I had a single /+/usr and regretted it, but I *have* encountered situations where I could not get /usr mounted and ended up merging it with /. FWIW, YMMV, etc. I can tell you that Pandu's analogy vis a vis Windows is a bit flawed. What Windows has done recently is (by default for clean installs) to split the boot loader and related bootstrap code into a separate partition from the actual operating system. Claiming that this is analogous to / and /usr is quite a stretch. It is much more accurate to make it analogous to / and /boot. The System Partition has no "Windows" files on it, just the equivalent to grub (and it's also used if you have BitLocker, to decrypt your boot partition). Which, to me, means it has absolutely nothing to do with the current discussion one way or the other :) --Mike