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.