On Tue, Oct 08, 2002 at 07:13:37PM +0200, Guillaume Cottenceau wrote: > > Ok I see. But then I think it's not so interesting to have a > separate /usr, if the machines can be different (windows, fonts > etc)
Why? How does individual machine differences in something like fonts make having a single /usr for a network not so interesting? The point of a shared /usr is some disk savings, but yes, disks are cheap these days. But in large networks, a new disk for every machine does add up. But disk-space aside, this is also an administrative issue. A network admin _can_ (easily!) make a font available to all by putting it on /usr, but that should not mean that individual machines should not also _be_able_ to have their own fonts. Let's not take flexibilty away, let's add it. > there can be many situations where anyway you want to > install packages for only one machine, thus invading the /usr.. > no? No. Generally in this kind of setup with a shared /usr, the network admin either decides that if even one machine wants a given package (and they might not all want the same packages -- this is OK), then he has to install it on the server first (and with the hints I have seen of a "distributed" urpmi this could be neat!). Or, what is more likely is that the software load on the /usr server includes _every_ available package. b. -- Brian J. Murrell
msg78506/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
