> That said, there is no good reason to undo the split.
OK, I guess it depends on what one thinks "good" means. But I've never
done it for one reason I consider good: by having everything in one
partition the free space is all in one "pool", and can be used by any
branch. When you're out of spa
Simon Geard wrote:
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 16:40 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
Also, it goes to the philosophy used by most distros that one size
fits all. In other words because 0.01% of systems are clustered,
lets make it that way for the other 99.99% of users.
Which is entirely reasonable, when
On 25.08.2015 11:07, Simon Kitching wrote:
On 08/25/2015 10:36 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 15:29 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
If distros like RedHat were really looking for consistency, they
would use /bin, /lib, and /sbin, and remove them from /usr. What
they really are doing is
On 08/25/2015 10:36 AM, Simon Geard wrote:
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 15:29 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
If distros like RedHat were really looking for consistency, they
would use /bin, /lib, and /sbin, and remove them from /usr. What
they really are doing is trying to make things easier for themselves
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 16:40 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> Also, it goes to the philosophy used by most distros that one size
> fits all. In other words because 0.01% of systems are clustered,
> lets make it that way for the other 99.99% of users.
Which is entirely reasonable, when there's a) a lar
On Mon, 2015-08-24 at 15:29 -0500, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
> If distros like RedHat were really looking for consistency, they
> would use /bin, /lib, and /sbin, and remove them from /usr. What
> they really are doing is trying to make things easier for themselves
> by not being concerned where each p
