> From: Paul Rogers <[email protected]>
> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 2016 14:12:57 -0800
> Subject: Re: [blfs-support] I'm curious
>
> > (Maybe give a more useful, informational subject line?)
>
> Too late now, lest another thread start.
>
( - or adjust subject line in usual way - e.g. as above.)
> > [Bruce Dubbs:]
> > I agree that from a practical standpoint that there is no reason to
> > keep /lib, /bin, and /sbin separate, but leaving that in does
> > demonstrate some techniques that may be useful to some users.
>
> So far I've just taken this as a historical artifact of the small disk
> days, but this time as I was zipping thru, I had a "Wait! Why?" moment.
> I'm vaguely aware there are these esoteric, cloudy configurations that
> might share FStree branches, so maybe it isn't just an artifact.
>
> I'm looking for reasons for separating /usr. Do "containers" do that?
> I suppose I can see that a DMZ server might want to do that for /lib,
> /bin, /sbin, /usr, getting those from the "safe side".
>
(A sidelight: you know the story about /usr being orig for users'
home-dirs, and why it ended up containing progs &c, and then later
/home was introduced, ... : plan9 uses /usr for ... users' homedirs. (
/sys is basically the os binaries+src; and things like /{bin,net,dev}
are just readily/easily-(re-)configurable union-dirs. The seamless,
malleable namespaces approach, which inter alia basically equates to
resource-sharing - incl network-wide - makes the linux poor-approximations
seem very very clumsy.)
rgds,
akh
--
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
