On 9/21/06, Casper.Dik at sun.com <Casper.Dik at sun.com> wrote:
>
> >I think you will still get that answer when you ask in
> >news:comp.unix.solaris (e.g. this knowledge doesn't seem to be
> >well-known outside Sun...) ... ;-(
>
>
> Yes, but that doesn't mean that the answer is basically "wrong" in
> the sense that the answer usually includes arguments like:
>
> - root's shell is used during boot (false)
> - root's shell is used for certain scripts (false)
> - root's shell should be statically linked (false, very much
> so in Solaris 10)
>
> Only the last answer was ever appropriate for earlier releases;
> the second argument was partially appropriate when our /etc/rc?.d scripts
> did not all start with #!.
>
> >Uhm... I do not think it is "stupid" to split "/" and "/usr" - sometimes
> >it is usefull to do it for performance or other reasons (like using
> >seperate physical disks for "/" and "/usr") ...
>
> For performance reasons? C'mon.
>
> The reason a split "/" and "/usr" is *stupid* is fairly simple; there
> are precious few scenarios which you can recover without /usr.
>
> (E.g., you can *always* mount "/" because the kernel boots from it and
> knows the boot device; but there are many scenarios where the /usr cannot
> be mounted and where recovery is not possible, e.g., when the devices
> pointing to the disk are not in the filesystem)
>
>
> >Why doesn't apply the same argumentation to "libshell in the root
> >filesystem", too ?
>
> Because we need one shell and /sbin/sh suffices for now.
Sounds you like being a little sadist and punish users with /sbin/sh.
Casper, could you elaborate why Sun is not willing to address the
problems with /sbin/sh and isn't even willing to support an
alternative, pls?
--
// Martin Schaffstall
// EMail: martin.schaffstall at googlemail.com
\\ //
\X/
