On Tuesday 08 January 2008 12:00:14 Carlos E. R. wrote: <SNIP> > Ok, whatever you name them, the significance is that /usr is mounted > separately above, as 'df' shows :-) > > > If you cannot mount /usr, then you get a mount failure. Depending on the > > machine, one could a console message, or one just get to read the numbers > > on an RS6000. To correct problems, I can always boot into the firmware. > > > >> What does that unix do? Does it mount /usr readonly? > > > > The boot halts. > > Under ForPro (another version of Unix for those who remember Fortune > > Systems), the solution was that /usr/bin had a minimum set of utilities. > > Of course, the mount of another "partition" on /usr meant then overlaid > > those utilities. > > Aha. Which is precisely the point for having certain programs in Linux > residing in /bin, and it not being a symlink to /usr. Linux handles better > that situation, IMHO. > > What is the advantage of having that symlink, then? There surely must be > something. I confess I haven't followed this thread fully, but I think an advantage of symlinks here would be that a symlink can point to a file on a different filesystem/partition/slice/LV (or whatever one wants to call it). Hard links must be on the same filesystem.
Jim -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
