On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 6:12 PM, Greg Woodbury <redwo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 09/29/2013 07:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > >> things were broken way before that. As much as I hate systemd, it is not >> the root cause of the problem. >> >> The problems were caused by people saying that seperate /usr was a good >> idea, so / would not fill up and similar idiocies. The problems were >> caused by people saying that lvm is a good idea - for desktops. Those >> people who are fighting against the kernel auto assembling raids are to >> blame too. >> >> Systemd is just another point in a very long list. >> > The usr filesystem was separate from root from the very early days of UNIX. > Disks were *tiny* (compared to today) and spreading certain things across > separate spindles provided major benefits. Certainly, the original need to > require a separate usr went away fairly quickly, but other benefits continued > to encourage a seperation between root and usr. > > The var filesystem was for variable system data, and was never terribly big > and its inclusion on the root volume happened. The home filesystem became > traditionally separate because data expands to fill all availab;e space, and > users collect *things* > > Networking made it possible to have home entirely off system, and diskless > worstations ruled for a while as well. > > By the time Linux came along, it had become common for boot volumes to not be > mounted during normal system operation, but the three filesystem layout was > common and workable. As Linux continued to be like Topsy (she jest growed!) > fragmentation started to occur as "distributions" arose. The "balkanization" > of Linux distributions became a real concern to some and standardization > offorts were encouraged. > > The "File System Standard" (FSS) was renamed to the Filesystem Hierarch > Standard (FHS) and it was strongly based on the UNIX System V definitions > (which called for seperation of usr and root.) POSIX added more layers and > attempted to bring in the various BSD flavors. > > THe LSB (Linux Standards Base) effort was conceived as supersceeding all the > other efforts, and FHS was folded into the LSB definition. Yet even then a > separate root and usr distinction survived. Then things started falling > apart again - POSIX rose like a phoenix and even the Windows/wintel > environment could claim POSIX compliant behavior. The fall of the LSB effort > really became evident when the FHS was gutted and certain major players > decided to ignore the LSB recommendations. > > (Look out, there are some severely mixed metaphors coming and perhaps even > some "allegory" Bear with it and you should get the gist of my accusations.) > > And now we are here. There is no clear definition of what comprises this OS > that is a Linux kernel and a largely GNU based user-land. There are two > major X-Windows based "Desktop Environments" and many less major DEs and > Linux is seen as being "locked in a struggle" with the Microsoft OSs to "win > the hearts and minds of the Users." > > This is quite scary to many folks who depend on the success of Linux > "winning" the so-called war. One of the camps bent on wining the "war" is > GNOME. Despite much history and experience that shows that choice and > freedom are NOT disadvantages, the mainline GNOME folks have charged ahead on > their own in a direction that overrides user choice and seems bound and > determined to "outdo" Microsoft at their own game. > > As a result, the GNOME Alliance has shattered. The main GNOME army marches > on its unfathomable path, and various large chunks have broke off in their > own directions (e.g. Cinnamon and Mate) seeking to remain flexible and not > incompatible with the KDE and other lesser DE folks. > > It is truly layable at the feet of the GNOME folks, the breakage of the root > and usr filesystem separability is all derived from the GNOME camp. > These changes may not, in fact, be deliberate or intended to "defeat" > Microsoft, but Ockham's Razor cuts and intentionality is the simpler > explanation. > > > I am NOT happy with the situation as it stands. Efforts that I have made on > behalf of the FOSS and Linux/GNU are no longer serving to benefit me and the > others with whom I thought I shared aspirations. > > I am an OS Agnostic/Atheist. I use what works to do what I need to do. My > at-home network includes all four (or is that 3.5?) "consumer" OSes. I have > spent quite a bit of effort to have them all work together, but forces seem > to be in play that seem determined to "win at all costs" and enforce a > computing monoculture. Such a result is not a good thing. As with biological > systems, monocultures are more vulnerable to interference and disease. The > evolution of differentiated organ systems in more complex (or "higher") forms > of life is driven by the need to provide robustness and continued operation > in the face of unknown challenges. > > To come back to the thesis: robustness and flexibility are required for good > "health" and we are witnessing a dangerous challenge. > > > [PS} If anybody cares, I was trained in both Computer Science and Biological > Science. and I can expand on the parallels if so desired. > > -- > G.Wolfe Woodbury > redwo...@gmail.com >
Indeed, you put it in good words, I too claim that the systemd agenda is what began all this, while it is hidden within all claims. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.
