"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 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.
Yes, though if the flexibility costs so much, it may become questionable whether we do it or we do other things which may be more useful to a larger number of people. I see your problem as something valuable but rather a "niche" than something really useful to a large number of people. -- Guillaume Cottenceau - http://people.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
