> I'm still trying to get to grips with the *nix partitioning scheme - one of > the things I don't understand is the replacement of /usr and /var with > /home, which is what a lot of people seem to recommend. For example, I'm
It's not the *replacement* of /home with /usr. /usr still needs to be present, as does /var, and the other key directories in a unix type system. What Mandrake may advocate is to make /home a separate partition instead of the more traditional use of /usr (and /var) on separate partitions. It's easier for people that know how much their own storage needs are going to be when setting up a separate /home partition than to guess how big /usr and /var will be. Of course, if one is too conservative, then one gets into trouble. > looking at setting up a box as a webserver (low usage, just to test on > really) and the apache docs say it will install itself to > /usr/local/apache - which it won't be able to do if I've only got / and > /home. /usr/local is still there. If it is not mounted separately, then it's combined with everthing else on its parent (i.e, /usr, if /usr is mounted on a separate partition, or / if it's not). You can make a separate partition for /usr/local if you want - if you're anticipating lots of tweaking, or you want to put in many third-party things, a separate /usr/local partition may be a good choice. That doesn't mean that /usr/local is gone - it simply means that it's part of / (or perhaps /usr) and not sitting alone on its own disk partition. > Richard
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
