30 Jun
2013
30 Jun
'13
1:46 p.m.
On Jun 29, 2013, at 8:15 AM, Liam Proven wrote:
That guy isn't nearly as smart as he likes to think he is. The core of his argument is
close enough to the truth, but pretty much all his "supporting details" details
read to me like he doesn't understand why it happened, either. The fact that
apparently nobody in charge of maintaining any known linux distribution has no clue what
the hell they're doing certainly doesn't help.
Some of the reasons for file system partitioning have to do with disk size, sure. Some of
them have to do with diskless workstations. Some of them have to do with considerations of
backups in the days of dump and restore. Some of them have to do with recovering the
system from certain kinds of problems (what happens to your dynamically linked shell when
your libc.so patch goes wrong? su? mount? cp?). What happens if you don't notice right
away and reboot? Will 'mount' run? What are the implications to disk layout given
subtle variations between different unix vendors' tools for backing up, bootstrapping,
disk partitioning, restoring, patching, netbooting, linking?
ok
bear.
--
until further notice