On 23/11/18 at 06:26, KatolaZ wrote: > On Thu, Nov 22, 2018 at 11:24:05PM +0100, Alessandro Selli wrote: >> On 22/11/18 at 19:21, Roger Leigh wrote: >>> On 21/11/2018 16:11, Alessandro Selli wrote: >>>> On 21/11/18 at 13:17, Roger Leigh wrote: >>>>> Hi folks, >>>>> >>>>> I've been following the discussion with interest. >>>> >>>> No, you definitely have not followed it. In fact you are >>>> disregarding >>>> all the points that were expressed against the merge. >>> Let me begin by stating that I found your reply (and others) to be >>> rude, unnecessarily aggressive, and lacking in well-reasoned objective >>> argument. >> >> Oh poor show flake, did I hurt your tender feelings when I state facts? >> >> > Alessandro, you are not funny at all.
I admit I did not intend to be. > Roger is one of the DDs who > stood the systemd avalanche in Debian, and the first one to publicly > support Devuan (please read https://devuan.org/os/debian-fork/ to see > what I mean). All right, thanks be to him for this. > Roger took the time and effort to provide a first-hand explanation > about the whats and whys behind early boot incantations. I do get the reasons the merge proponents prefer this filesystem layout. What I rant against is their choices being imposed on me. > And his > insight in this respect is precious and fundamental. I appreciate that > not everybody might be interested in these details, but this thread is > *exactly* about that, not about your own personal experience with this > or that setup. > > On a related point: no, Alessandro, Devuan is not a Desktop-oriented > distribution. While I did not state this claim, I thought desktop use was one of the targets Devuan would try to accomodate. If this is not the case then I think I'd better go search some desktop-friendly distribution. > Devuan strives to remain as a universal operating system > as Debian claims to be. This is my precisely my point: trumping desktop users' needs (or just freedom of customization and choice) because of cluster ease-of-use considerations make the distribution *not* universal. If Devuan is going to ignore the former users, if Devuan too is going to be a datacenter distribution like Red Hat is and Debian is becoming, fine, you have a right to do so. I'll move on. i state one more: I'm not trying to impose my views, considerations and preferences on others, I'm trying to protect the freedom I've had so far to customize *my* GNU/Linux installations the way I deem fit, that they are to be primarilly used as servers, workstations, routers or emergency/rescue systems. I want the freedom to customize the install to the most radical way, not to prevent others from doing what they want to *their* systems. For this reason it's useless that people keep listing the benefits of a merged / -> /usr for datacenter clusters to justify the Technical Committee's decisions, I don't care what the datacenter guys do to their systems, I'm fine with them merging / -> /usr, as well as splitting /etc from / ro whatever. I don't care so solng as *their* choices and customizations do not turn out to adversely affect *my* customizations and alternative (though decades-long proven) layouts. Because preventing me from dong what I have been doing since the late '90s, and what has been done in many Unixes since the '70s is *not* providing a Universal OS. Is this clear enough? In fewer words: Dear Debian TC, merge or split what the hell you want in the datacenter, but keep you hands off *my* desktop/server installations. > Devuan is currently used in a mutlitude of > environments that include server farms, corporate and personal > servers, embedded systems, personal devices, and desktops. So any > choice Devuan will make has to take into account *all* the different > uses of Devuan. > > We are going to provide the users with the choice of having or not > having a merged-usr. Yes, we are. Debian apparently is no longer going to be. And again I was listed the many good reasons the merge is good for the datacenter as an answer to my question: "Why must I be denied the possibility to do otherwise?". Plus the many-times repeated BS of: "The / - /usr split is silly", "it's a leftover of a distant and bad past", "there's no reason to do it", "storage devices today are big, so why bother?", "you do not gain anything setting /usr ro" while they keep ignoring whatever I write: ro is just one of the many mount options that I set different from the /usr and / filesystems, ro does add security, a merged / -> /usr does make my non-clustered, non-datacenter installs more difficult to manage and rescue and backup and less flexible. So, regardless from what's best to the datacenter, can I be allowed to follow the 40 years long path and keep having a /usr split from /? Yes && I stay || I leave. -- Alessandro Selli <[email protected]> VOIP SIP: [email protected] Chiave firma e cifratura PGP/GPG signing and encoding key: BA651E4050DDFC31E17384BABCE7BD1A1B0DF2AE
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Dng mailing list [email protected] https://mailinglists.dyne.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/dng
