On Mon, 17 Dec 2012 16:02:54 +0800 Mark David Dumlao <madum...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > That was the original reason for having / and /usr separate, and it > > dates back to the early 70s. The other reason that stems from that > > time period is the size of disks we had back then - they were tiny > > and often a minimal / was all that could really fit on the primary > > system drive. > > I'm sorry, but I just can't let this one go. The reasons are > backwards. The limitation in free space was the original reason [1] > why / and /usr were separated. In fact, /usr was supposed to serve the > same purpose as /home - it was originally a directory for users. It's > only a quirk of history that served to keep most of the binaries in > /usr when the home directories were moved elsewhere to /home. > > Long story short, Unix, too, has its share of old farts that are > unwilling to embrace change at anything faster than a glacier's pace. > Just ask the Plan 9 folks. > > [1] > http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html Well fair enough. This stuff is becoming more myth than fact as less and less people are around to remember how it really went. There may even have been to-ing and fro-ing moving bits around till Ken and Dennis settled on the eventual outcome in that post. Either way, we still agree. A separate /usr is, *for the most part*, a tradition applied without much understanding of the reason (most traditions are exactly like this). Most people do not actually need it. Some people do need it and can clearly state why; I am not in that group. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
