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