--- Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 01, 2000 at 04:53:25AM -0400, Eugenio
> Diaz wrote:
> > I think ***THIS IS WRONG***, since most
> people/sites keep a lot of other
> > stuff in "/home", and this msec behavior suddenly
> stops a lot of
> > applications that may be have dirs at "/home".
>
> Erm, why should an application write stuff to /home?
For many reasons:
1. Just because sometimes it is nice to have data
stored in a separate partition from binaries, and you
don't have or don't want to add another partition.
2. Usually "/home" is the largest partition, and you
can move things to it.
3. Virtual domains! Need I say more?
4. Categorization of home dirs: I have "/home/vips"
(this is an old one!), "/home/friends", "/home/users",
etc.
5. Many other I don't feel I should write.
But above anything else, it is a bad programming
practice to just assume such broad assumptions such
as, all there is in "/home" is "/home/<username>";
specially when you have a deterministic list of
usernames and their home dirs in the system passwd
file!
> Isn't that what /opt
> or /usr/local is for?
Nope.
Traditionally "/opt" comes from a bad legacy of
commercial vendors in the Sun world not having a nice
enough packaging system.
And "/usr/local" comes from big network set-ups where
you mount almost everything from the servers,
including "/usr", and "/usr/local" is for **binaries**
you want installed on the local machine for speed or
config reasons.
BTW, in the Linux philosophy, "/home" does not mean
"place to put user's data only", but "place to put
data"; that's why we have "http", "ftp", etc.
application homes in "/home".
I guess my point is clear: "It is wrong to make
modifications to *all* sub-dir in the /home partition,
under the assumption that all sub-dirs are users' home dirs."
=====
________________________
Eugenio Diaz, BSEE/BSCE
Linux Engineer
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/
