On Tue, Oct 01, 2013 at 06:35:58PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > >> wrong analogy and it goes down from here. Really. > > Ohh, but they are inspired on YOUR analogy, so guess how wrong yours was. > > your trolling is weak. And since I never saw anything worth reading > posted by you, you are very close to plonk territory right now.
If his analogies are weak, that's deliberate: to show that your analogy is just as weak. Irrespective of why /usr was first added, or that it was in fact what /home now is, it's proven useful in many contexts. That you don't accept that, won't convince anyone who's lived that truth. All you'll do is argue in circles about irrelevance. > > The setup of a separate /usr on a networked system was used in amongst > > other places a few swedish universities. > > seperate /usr on network has been used in a lot of places. So what? Does > that prove anything? > Nope, it doesn't. Er quite obviously it proves that a separate /usr can be useful. In fact so much so that all the benefits of the above setup are claimed by that god-awful "why split usr is broken because we are dumbasses who got kicked out of the kernel and think that userspace doesn't need stability" post, as if they never existed before, and could not exist without a rootfs/usr merge. > Seriously, /var is a good candidate for a seperate partition. /usr is not. They both are. Not very convincing is it? Seriously, if you don't see the need for one, good for you. Just stop telling us what to think, will you? > >>>> too bad POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS. > >>> Too bad separate /usr is much older than initramfs. > >> too bad that initramfs and initrd are pretty good solutions to the > >> problem of hidden breakage caused by seperate /usr. > >> If you are smart enough to setup an nfs server, I suppose you are smart > >> enough to run dracut/genkernel&co. > > If you are smart enough to run "dracut/genkernel&co" I suppose you are > > smart enough to see the wrongness of your initial statement "too bad > > POSIX is much older than LSB or FHS." > > too bad I am right and you are and idiot. > > Originally, the name "POSIX" referred to IEEE Std 1003.1-1988, released > in 1988. The family of POSIX standards is formally designated as IEEE > 1003 and the international standard name is ISO/IEC 9945. > The standards, formerly known as IEEE-IX, emerged from a project that > began circa 1985. Richard Stallman suggested the name POSIX to the IEEE. > The committee found it more easily pronounceable and memorable, so it > adopted it > > That is from wikipedia. > > 1985/1988. When were LSB/FHS created again? > > FHS in 1994. Hm.... You really are obtuse. You should try to consider what *point* the other person is trying to make before you mouth off with "superior knowledge" that completely misses it. > *plonk* ditto. AFAIC you're the one who pulled insults out, when in fact you were *completely* missing the point. Bravo. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
