On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 10:15:22AM +0200, Sjoerd Hardeman wrote: > Robert Holtzman schreef: > >On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 06:03:37PM -0500, Jordon Bedwell wrote: > >>On 7/28/10 4:40 PM, Robert Holtzman wrote: > >>>What was the reason for that? The usual plan is to put /home, at least, > >>>on a separate partition. > >>> > >>The *usual* plan is to put it on a separate drive (but since debian > >>can't judge how smart a user is ~ they put it on the same drive > >>different partition) or if you use network storage, to keep it on > >>the same drive in the same partition. Not everybody runs critical > >>systems or even stores anything in /home. I know on my Debian > >>installs nothing is in /home/username. > > > >Dandy *if* you have two drives. How many home users would that be? > Also, multiple partitions lose their usefulness for a single-user > linux machine. I do not run a mail server which justifies a separate > /var, ans since I can fill /usr or /etc just as well as /home, > there's no real reason to create multiple partitions. The only > exception of course is a separate /boot to avoid boot problems.
I disagree. The only time multiple partitions lose their usefulness is in the event of a hard drive failure or massive power surge *and* there is no backup. Otherwise /home on a separate partition allows the installation of another OS without formatting /home. I've done this a number of times and it works beautifully, allowing me to retain a number of configuration scripts. -- Bob Holtzman Key ID: 8D549279 "If you think you're getting free lunch, check the price of the beer"
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
