On 2024-11-14 10:31:46, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 11:10:54PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 02:14:34PM +0800, kindusmith wrote:
> > > > In early Unix, boot and vmunix were both stored in the root directory as
> > > >
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 04:39:28PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
Indeed. But even the comment, by itself, I think raises a question - why
do we (still) do this?
Because there's very little incentive to change it.
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 11:10:54PM +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 02:14:34PM +0800, kindusmith wrote:
> In early Unix, boot and vmunix were both stored in the root directory as
> programs, and boot was used to start vmunix. Debian inherited this for
> compatibility
On Tue, 2024-11-12 at 23:10 +0100, Iustin Pop wrote:
> On 2024-11-12 12:45:47, Michael Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 02:14:34PM +0800, kindusmith wrote:
> > > In early Unix, boot and vmunix were both stored in the root directory as
> > > programs, and bo
On Nov 12, Iustin Pop wrote:
> The question is why on a default install with grub, which doesn't need
> nor use the symlinks, are they still created. For most systems, they're
> superfluous.
>
> iustin, who also dislikes these and always needs to disable them
Agreed.
--
ciao,
Marco
signature
On 2024-11-12 12:45:47, Michael Stone wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 02:14:34PM +0800, kindusmith wrote:
> > In early Unix, boot and vmunix were both stored in the root directory as
> > programs, and boot was used to start vmunix. Debian inherited this for
> > compatibili
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 02:14:34PM +0800, kindusmith wrote:
In early Unix, boot and vmunix were both stored in the root directory
as programs, and boot was used to start vmunix. Debian inherited this
for compatibility, but the situation has changed a lot. Today, boot is
stored in the root
me, the default location of the symlinks (which was the initial complaint)
pollutes the root directory with files that to me do not belong there.
> Having the symlink is very practical for bootloaders that are not grub.
> Pointing an extlinux.conf or a boot.scr to /vmlinuz instead of having t
Quoting Hans (2024-11-12 09:35:08)
> However, maybe a link is alo no more needed, even with a seperated /boot
> partition.
It's just a symlink. What's the harm?
Having the symlink is very practical for bootloaders that are not grub.
Pointing an extlinux.conf or a boot.scr to /vmlinuz instead of h
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 09:35:08AM +0100, Hans wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 12. November 2024, 07:14:34 CET schrieb kindusmith:
> In very early linux, as far as I remember in SuSE-Linux, the kernel was
> installed in a small partition /boot (about 3 or 4 sizes of the kernel) and a
> link ponting to the
ly Unix, boot and vmunix were both stored in the root directory as
> programs, and boot was used to start vmunix. Debian inherited this for
> compatibility, but the situation has changed a lot. Today, boot is
> stored in the root directory as a directory, which already contains the
>
Geert Stappers writes:
> Chesters fence
Chesterton's?
Bjørn
On Tue, Nov 12, 2024 at 02:14:34PM +0800, kindusmith wrote:
> In early Unix, boot and vmunix were both stored in the root directory as
> programs, and boot was used to start vmunix. Debian inherited this for
> compatibility, but the situation has changed a lot. Today, boot is stored in
&
In early Unix, boot and vmunix were both stored in the root directory as
programs, and boot was used to start vmunix. Debian inherited this for
compatibility, but the situation has changed a lot. Today, boot is
stored in the root directory as a directory, which already contains the
kernel
jvieir...@sapo.pt wrote:
>
>In the Debian tutorials, somewhere in the Debian file system[1] page
>it states: âWhen you refer to root directory it means you talk about
>the root of the file system: â/â. This is different from the home
>directory for the root user: â/roo
ned by Debian.
Most documentation won't talk about /root (except to present it as the
home of root). Calling "/" another name than the root directory would
just confuse users.
--
Parenthesise to avoid ambiguity.
- The Elements of Programming Style (Kernighan & Plauger)
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
leave a comment on the page.
> Would it be feasible to change the name of the /root directory to sort out
> the confusion? It could be renamed as /adm, for instance.
Anyone can do that on their own systems quite simply (manually update
/etc/passwd, rename the directory) but I expect that do
* jvieir...@sapo.pt [170605 11:33]:
> Hi,
>
> In the Debian tutorials, somewhere in the Debian file system[1] page it
> states: “When you refer to root directory it means you talk about the root
> of the file system: ‘/’. This is different from the home directory for the
>
Hi,
In the Debian tutorials, somewhere in the Debian file system[1] page
it states: “When you refer to root directory it means you talk about
the root of the file system: ‘/’. This is different from the home
directory for the root user: ‘/root’.”
The use of the same term with different
: Expat
Programming Lang: JavaScript
Description : Find the root directory of a npm package
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
20 matches
Mail list logo
