Am 11.10.2013 10:28, schrieb Steven J. Long: > 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. > you know, I just reread this subthread and the other crap you just posted today.
Complaining, insulting, being 'obtuse' - that describes you very well. Or not reading at all. Very well, I can live without your emails. Really, I can.
