Thanks Chris and Scott for your input on this subject - I've found it most
helpful.
The freedom to tweak the system to your own way of working is great, and I now
feel I am better informed on how to do this without doing anything radical
that I will regret in years to come.
Thanks again to you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Wednesday 12 November 2003 04:10, Tom Munro Glass wrote:
> Thanks Chris. Please take a look at my reply to Scott because the two of
> you seem to be suggesting contradicting ideas, and I'm keen to learn why!
Have done. It's just my preference
Tom Munro Glass wrote:
Hi Tom- /usr doesn't _have_ to be mounted read-only, but it's not
uncommon to do it on systems connected to the net/susceptible to
hacking/just for security. Default Sun for home is /export home,
primarily b/c Solaris thinks it's always the NFS server ;-) Most Linux
distro
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 08:47, Chris Howells wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tuesday 11 November 2003 19:38, Tom Munro Glass wrote:
> > filesystem for /home, should I mount this at /home and make /usr/home a
> > link to /home, or do I just mount it at /usr/home?
>
> The latter is probably preferable.
Thanks Chris
> Hi Tom- /usr doesn't _have_ to be mounted read-only, but it's not
> uncommon to do it on systems connected to the net/susceptible to
> hacking/just for security. Default Sun for home is /export home,
> primarily b/c Solaris thinks it's always the NFS server ;-) Most Linux
> distros use /home, a
Tom Munro Glass wrote:
Depends on what philosophy you subscribe to- if it's on a local system
only, then create a group for members that will need access to it, and
create a directory in the /home tree, like /home/'project_foo
If it's going to be NFS mounted by other systems, then create an /expor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 19:38, Tom Munro Glass wrote:
> filesystem for /home, should I mount this at /home and make /usr/home a
> link to /home, or do I just mount it at /usr/home?
The latter is probably preferable.
- --
Cheers, Chris Howel
>
> Depends on what philosophy you subscribe to- if it's on a local system
> only, then create a group for members that will need access to it, and
> create a directory in the /home tree, like /home/'project_foo
>
> If it's going to be NFS mounted by other systems, then create an /export
> director
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
On Tuesday 11 November 2003 02:52, Tom Munro Glass wrote:
> I guessed there isn't a default, but I thought there might be a convention
> for this and I want to follow conventions where ever possible.
I prefer to put things onto /usr/home (e.g. /u
Tom Munro Glass wrote:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:31, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:53:20PM +1300, Tom Munro Glass wrote:
On an intranet file server, the users' private files are obviously stored
in /usr/home/username but where is the correct place to store files that
are c
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 15:31, Alex de Kruijff wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:53:20PM +1300, Tom Munro Glass wrote:
> > On an intranet file server, the users' private files are obviously stored
> > in /usr/home/username but where is the correct place to store files that
> > are common to many user
On Tue, Nov 11, 2003 at 01:53:20PM +1300, Tom Munro Glass wrote:
> On an intranet file server, the users' private files are obviously stored in
> /usr/home/username but where is the correct place to store files that are
> common to many users? Would this be something like /usr/home/public or
> /
On an intranet file server, the users' private files are obviously stored in
/usr/home/username but where is the correct place to store files that are
common to many users? Would this be something like /usr/home/public or
/usr/local/public or even /var/public?
Thanks,
Tom Munro Glass
13 matches
Mail list logo
