On Fri, 16 Jun 2023 16:41:21 -0500 Derek Martin <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm curious if this change is thought to have any genuine practical > benefit, or if it's just the usual, "I'm a bored developer, time to > break something completely arbitrarily, that's working perfectly fine, > that people have been used to for literally decades, that will likely > cause random obscure problems, simply because it does not uphold some > arbitrary idea I have of design perfection..." Things haven't been working perfectly fine. Ever find NIS or LDAP login shells failing on some systems because BASH is /bin/bash on some of them while it's /usr/bin/bash on others? Or have scripts fail to run properly because they can't find /usr/bin/df and /usr/bin/du because they're in /bin? I don't know about you but I've experienced problems like these more times than I can remember. UsrMerge solves problems like these, and others: https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge/ (NB: UsrMerge does not depend on systemd, the article just happens to be in that space) But what are the benefits of split usr? Well, if you're running Unix v6 on a PDP-11 with two 1.5MB disk packs, splitting the OS across the two disk packs makes sense. Otherwise, there are no benefits whatsoever: http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html -- \m/ (--) \m/ _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
