From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-151040-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 88A1F1381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:22:49 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3B8BCE0DF7;
Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:22:44 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-vc0-f173.google.com (mail-vc0-f173.google.com [209.85.220.173])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2BCC7E0BBF
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 15:22:42 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-vc0-f173.google.com with SMTP id if17so3139280vcb.32
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject
:from:to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=GC7lV8+un0xjinlE2Xm3NomDfwtFcePK0F4xdh8y7fs=;
b=zo3XKt67rp0mLqdvIf4FJHPdDwnARNvA34aBOBM+q4RLuB+du04v5bhJoajqvP6D7x
BMeyu8MrUkVQSC0BavQuYEMCd4I6rUD6euTn3fitqMqU0PEVSGOft31Y3qyaseqsx33r
UAY06nFKr0UFVpNnwfJ6Mkz8Y22Mmn7xi7jNh+GdBv7r6HpMhX8iCwrmR4FVeMpOEAkE
vn+EmHkKc+dyypQPecTNiMiQPulfqtIvPgmjFyBRSH6arBedV0u9Qf8o3boP045222XY
CBs0lVRx3knj1ou5zFrxZiSl9UA97EoQ2uzyoARIPwahWF9ZVSW6ky7lecXicrWKnpkj
DyKg==
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
X-Received: by 10.220.244.132 with SMTP id lq4mr28676vcb.31.1380468162360;
Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: alon.barlev@gmail.com
Received: by 10.58.247.71 with HTTP; Sun, 29 Sep 2013 08:22:42 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <52484363.7020309@gmail.com>
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>
Date: Sun, 29 Sep 2013 17:22:42 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: xNfud9RWHOIL7zD3CSSrNnbGFDE
Message-ID: <CAOazyz0uwc2NAJ8jF0Otoc2sE1rZLF1vp5Ry2Fb8WCra2ZAw7g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Flexibility and robustness in the Linux organisim (was:
[gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01)
From: Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Archives-Salt: ca205989-0627-42a4-94f7-fddeb14e2c6f
X-Archives-Hash: 802d875bb7519bbdb61c00e669b1b323
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Greg Woodbury <redwolfe@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>
>> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is 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 were
>> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those
>> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are 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 of UNI=
X. Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain things acro=
ss separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, the original need =
to require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, but other benefits cont=
inued to encourage a seperation between root and usr.
>
> The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never terribly b=
ig and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The home filesystem bec=
ame traditionally separate because data expands to fill all availab;e space=
, and users collect *things*
>
> Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and diskles=
s worstations ruled for a while as well.
>
> By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes to no=
t be mounted during normal system operation, but the three filesystem layou=
t was common and workable. As Linux continued to be like Topsy (she jest g=
rowed!) fragmentation started to occur as "distributions" arose. The "balk=
anization" of Linux distributions became a real concern to some and standar=
dization offorts were encouraged.
>
> The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem Hierarch S=
tandard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V definitions (w=
hich called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX added more layers and at=
tempted 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. Yet even the=
n a separate root and usr distinction survived. Then things started fallin=
g apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the Windows/wintel envir=
onment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The fall of the LSB effort rea=
lly became evident when the FHS was gutted and certain major players decide=
d to ignore the LSB recommendations.
>
> (Look out, there are some severely mixed metaphors coming and perhaps eve=
n some "allegory" Bear with it and you should get the gist of my accusatio=
ns.)
>
> And now we are here. There is no clear definition of what comprises this=
OS that is a Linux kernel and a largely GNU based user-land. There are tw=
o major X-Windows based "Desktop Environments" and many less major DEs and =
Linux is seen as being "locked in a struggle" with the Microsoft OSs to "wi=
n the hearts and minds of the Users."
>
> This is quite scary to many folks who depend on the success of Linux "win=
ning" the so-called war. One of the camps bent on wining the "war" is GNOM=
E. Despite much history and experience that shows that choice and freedom =
are NOT disadvantages, the mainline GNOME folks have charged ahead on their=
own in a direction that overrides user choice and seems bound and determin=
ed to "outdo" Microsoft at their own game.
>
> As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army march=
es on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broke off in the=
ir own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain flexible and n=
ot incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks.
>
> It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of the r=
oot and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME camp.
> These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" Mic=
rosoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler explanati=
on.
>
>
> I am NOT happy with the situation as it stands. Efforts that I have made=
on behalf of the FOSS and Linux/GNU are no longer serving to benefit me an=
d the others with whom I thought I shared aspirations.
>
> I am an OS Agnostic/Atheist. I use what works to do what I need to do. My=
at-home network includes all four (or is that 3.5?) "consumer" OSes. I hav=
e spent quite a bit of effort to have them all work together, but forces se=
em to be in play that seem determined to "win at all costs" and enforce a c=
omputing monoculture. Such a result is not a good thing. As with biologica=
l systems, monocultures are more vulnerable to interference and disease. T=
he evolution of differentiated organ systems in more complex (or "higher") =
forms of life is driven by the need to provide robustness and continued ope=
ration in the face of unknown challenges.
>
> To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required for g=
ood "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge.
>
>
> [PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and Biologi=
cal Science. and I can expand on the parallels if so desired.
>
> --
> G.Wolfe Woodbury
> redwolfe@gmail.com
>
Indeed, you put it in good words, I too claim that the systemd agenda
is what began all this, while it is hidden within all claims.
Regards,
Alon Bar-Lev.