From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-143470-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F326E1381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:44:09 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3D32521C042;
Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:43:56 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-wi0-f177.google.com (mail-wi0-f177.google.com [209.85.212.177])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 727FC21C0C0
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 17 Dec 2012 07:42:32 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-wi0-f177.google.com with SMTP id hm2so1709324wib.10
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:42:31 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=date:from:to:subject:message-id:in-reply-to:references:organization
:x-mailer:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=PpfltQ3sZ3XO5bIqf3WOSCzhGEi3xZ/+9IZyb11k1y4=;
b=PR+OzICMtRjPaJ//ZYjDXYuGrZM6YQOpndg6XmtfePB5R2gHtX2bks1uGUHYlMvV3b
wTvyM1VAQk9ZAmwMcYfnTOOUubxZRKmvy8+sQZD8ggYgoG9ugFw7zErLQkrAiYBv7tuM
WyGTBBvyttDLJpE3rHBnt6OeIJTsAHpVt2pIfMrNMFPSZ8WCESTWNCQrMXDG4Fw8Tlec
6rlUsgkRgVK8Wz4UMD+y4tdaDSJEeQGhFdwz9tWfgafSRQOezyIdrbvEoRR3Hpdw29g2
0VVVQcX0Rz6fBqOGb7f1/izmr5AGZmbAzfTFBpW+w/KOb1KHME0djEAHXtMvzKMUm6xh
kTMw==
Received: by 10.180.24.199 with SMTP id w7mr13904745wif.5.1355730151144;
Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:42:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from khamul.example.com (196-215-209-117.dynamic.isadsl.co.za. [196.215.209.117])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id dw4sm11155346wib.1.2012.12.16.23.42.28
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Sun, 16 Dec 2012 23:42:30 -0800 (PST)
Date: Mon, 17 Dec 2012 09:38:59 +0200
From: Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Message-ID: <20121217093859.7cc56257@khamul.example.com>
In-Reply-To: <20121217002613.294cff70@kc-sys.chadwicks.me.uk>
References: <50CB1942.3020900@gmail.com>
<CAK2H+ecMZ5JO+SGBAdwhGO0HnB8Za-6_EaS1OiQcEJ03a0iQVg@mail.gmail.com>
<50CB4A3C.1030109@gmail.com>
<CAK2H+ecBb-nJ-ZY1efRT+sNCq6v9xgWnwL4GVpY-2j-GNTpJeA@mail.gmail.com>
<50CB5406.7040404@gmail.com>
<CAK2H+efpby+2NnbjReXyGjN3=Xe63j_2K69kCZjDhZcHvjusdA@mail.gmail.com>
<8738z7hgsa.fsf@ist.utl.pt>
<20121216171043.71084070@khamul.example.com>
<20121216184953.GD16560@server>
<876241d9gn.fsf@ist.utl.pt>
<20121217002613.294cff70@kc-sys.chadwicks.me.uk>
Organization: Internet Solutions
X-Mailer: Claws Mail 3.8.1 (GTK+ 2.24.14; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu)
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
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-Archives-Salt: 2aecf8d6-60b5-4679-9132-9e92190c4613
X-Archives-Hash: 3fd33e56c3a6b808d18d68a02afb9b10
On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 00:26:13 +0000
Kevin Chadwick <ma1l1ists@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 Dec 2012 22:32:24 +0200
> nunojsilva@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote:
>
> > My thanks, too! There's nothing like reading on some actual
> > experience with this. So this was once the reason to keep /
> > separate. Not that important anymore (but this is still no excuse
> > to force people to keep /usr in the same filesystem).
>
> Sorry but real world data is important and I am fully aware of the
> academic theorist problems compared to practical experience but this
> simply doesn't apply here. I didn't see any evidence or
> argument that a larger root conducting millions more writes is as safe
> as a smaller read only one perhaos not touched for months.
>
> The testing criteria were very generally put and just because an
> earthquake hasn't hit 200 building in the last 50 years is no reason
> to remove shock absorbers or other measures from sky scrapers.
>
I thought I was clear in that - I was my survey of my machines for my
purposes only, not a formal study in any way.
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com