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 71C9C1381F3 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:21:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D4BAEE0BBF; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:21:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B2C40E0AC9 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:21:25 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [IPv6:2001:16d8:ff00:5f8::2] (cl-1529.sto-01.se.sixxs.net [IPv6:2001:16d8:ff00:5f8::2]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: klondike) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A69433EF49 for ; Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:21:23 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <524A076B.7070501@gentoo.org> Date: Tue, 01 Oct 2013 01:21:15 +0200 From: "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130925 Thunderbird/17.0.9 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 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim References: <5246079E.7090406@gmail.com> <524761B4.60805@gmail.com> <20130929052937.GA30380@waltdnes.org> <201309290925.06893.michaelkintzios@gmail.com> <5247E4C2.5040502@gmail.com> <52480720.7070704@googlemail.com> <52480902.9040305@gmail.com> <52481602.6020305@googlemail.com> <52484363.7020309@gmail.com> <52484F5F.5090408@googlemail.com> <5248581F.7060902@gentoo.org> <5248AE0A.5070603@googlemail.com> In-Reply-To: <5248AE0A.5070603@googlemail.com> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.5.2 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6JFWpExdVmRLvecR6BWK77vBgSaA2hsQj" X-Archives-Salt: 4a4edd74-7bfa-4da6-ae5c-7ca7858f3e83 X-Archives-Hash: fea2a47428b8a1080136f5c93f4923a9 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --6JFWpExdVmRLvecR6BWK77vBgSaA2hsQj Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable El 30/09/13 00:47, Volker Armin Hemmann escribi=C3=B3: > Am 29.09.2013 18:41, schrieb Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike):= >> El 29/09/13 18:03, Volker Armin Hemmann escribi=C3=B3: >>> Am 29.09.2013 17:12, schrieb Greg Woodbury: >>>> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: >>>> >>>>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it i= s not >>>>> the root cause of the problem. >>>>> >>>>> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a = good >>>>> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems wer= e >>>>> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Tho= se >>>>> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids ar= e to >>>>> blame too. >>>>> >>>>> Systemd is just another point in a very long list. >>>>> >>>> The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days o= f >>>> UNIX. Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain >>>> things across separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, >>>> the original need to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly= , >>>> but other benefits continued to encourage a seperation between root >>>> and usr. >>>> >>> in the very early days /usr did not exist in the first space and was >>> only created because someone added a harddisk. >>> >>> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> I'm going to show the lack of sense of this argument: >> in the very early days linux did not exist in the first space and was >> only created because someone got a 386. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. > wrong analogy and it goes down from here. Really. Ohh, but they are inspired on YOUR analogy, so guess how wrong yours was.= >> in the very early days GNU did not exist in the first space and was >> only created because someone jammed a printer. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> >> in the very early days Gentoo did not exist in the first space and was= >> only created because someone added a processor. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> >> in the very early days hardening did not exist in the first space and = was >> only created because someone added security. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> >> in the very early days Gnome did not exist in the first space and was >> only created because someone got a graphics card. >> >> Not really a good reason to keep it around. >> >> I'm sure you'll be able to figure out the pattern there. >> >> Ohh and BTW, /usr was not just added because someone added a harddrive= , >> in most cases it was used to allow machines contain a very small syste= m >> on / which was enough to just boot and mount a networked system (/usr)= >> containing most of the software. This allowed for cheaper deployment o= f >> machines since the hard drive could be smaller as it wouldn't need to >> have all the data locally. Yeah, if this sounds familiar is because th= is >> was later moved to initramfs. > no, network'ed file systems came a lot later. > Initially /usr was added because one harddisk was full. Really, that is= > the whole reason for its (broken) existance. Please provide some reference about "Initially /usr was added because one harddisk was full." without it your statement is moot to me. The setup of a separate /usr on a networked system was used in amongst other places a few swedish universities. >>>> The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never >>>> terribly big and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The hom= e >>>> filesystem became traditionally separate because data expands to fi= ll >>>> all availab;e space, and users collect *things* >>> and a seperate /home does not create any problems. >>> /var is much more prone to accidentally fill up then /usr ever was. >> You are jst getting it wrong, /var was kept locally as the data there >> was supposed to change from machine to machine. > no, you just don't understand what I wrote. > People told other people to keep /usr seperate so / may not fill up by > accident. > > That advise always was murky at best. Outright stupid is a good > description too. > > /usr is not prone to much changes. So if your / fits the contents of > /usr just fine, there is pretty much no risk. > /var on the other hand tends to explode - but a lot of people never got= > told to put /var on a seperate disk. > > If you ever realized that a tens of gigabyte logfile just made your box= > unbootable, you learnt a lot that day. That's why you move /var/log, not /var >>>> Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and >>>> diskless worstations ruled for a while as well. >>>> >>>> By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes = to >>>> not be mounted during normal system operation, but the three >>>> filesystem layout was common and workable. As Linux continued to be= >>>> like Topsy (she jest growed!) fragmentation started to occur as >>>> "distributions" arose. The "balkanization" of Linux distributions >>>> became a real concern to some and standardization offorts were >>>> encouraged. >>>> >>>> The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem >>>> Hierarch Standard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System= V >>>> definitions (which called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX add= ed >>>> more layers and attempted to bring in the various BSD flavors. >>>> >>>> THe LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as supersceeding= >>>> all the other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Y= et >>>> even then a separate root and usr distinction survived. Then things= >>>> started falling apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the= >>>> Windows/wintel environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The= >>>> fall of the LSB effort really became evident when the FHS was gutted= >>>> and certain major players decided to ignore the LSB recommendations.= >>> too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. >> Too bad separate /usr is much older than initramfs. > too bad that initramfs and initrd are pretty good solutions to the > problem of hidden breakage caused by seperate /usr. > If you are smart enough to setup an nfs server, I suppose you are smart= > enough to run dracut/genkernel&co. If you are smart enough to run "dracut/genkernel&co" I suppose you are smart enough to see the wrongness of your initial statement "too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS." >>>> As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army >>>> marches on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have brok= e >>>> off in their own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to rema= in >>>> flexible and not incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks= =2E >>>> >>>> It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of >>>> the root and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNO= ME >>>> camp. >>>> These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat= " >>>> Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler= >>>> explanation. >>> that gnome is very hostile when it comes to KDE or choice is not news= =2E >>> And their dependency on systemd is just the usual madness. But they a= re >>> not to blame for seperate /usr and the breakage it causes. >> True, fingers here should be pointed into another direction like syste= md. > systemd is not the first package to break. udev is a part of systemd >>>> To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required >>>> for good "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge. >>> what? that you need an initrd? That is so bad? >> It may be, there is people which may not have enough free space ob /bo= ot >> for example. > and now we are deeply into kidding territory. How small is that boot? 3= mb? Maybe, I know of Gentoo users running on really old Pentium IIs with SCSI disks, so it wouldn't come as a surprise. >>> Are you kidding me? >> I doubt it, instead you seem to be just trolling, see your own argumen= ts > well, I haven't seen any arguments from you so far. So who is the troll= > again? You have kindly disregarded them... like trolls tend to do, >>>> [PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and >>>> Biological Science. and I can expand on the parallels if so desired= =2E >>>> >>> no thank you. But if I might add one: you are making an elephant out = of >>> a gnat. >> To me it looks like youu are making a gnat out of an elephant. > what is the elephant? Running an extra command on kernel updates? Requiring users to repartition systems with the downtime that carries, for example. --6JFWpExdVmRLvecR6BWK77vBgSaA2hsQj Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.20 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlJKB28ACgkQcfrM1mX4BmCynQCg9ngnyZsW5Y+PnCw0ywSFHX5f vGIAn1YvEvqpVYBkVqhkgbPprZFX8UEm =ruf7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --6JFWpExdVmRLvecR6BWK77vBgSaA2hsQj--