Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-28 Thread Tim
Tim: >> When I was young, we didn't have no computers. We used pencil and >> paper, and we were grateful. ;-) Rick Stevens: > And you probably ate dirt and carpet fuzz as well. Only when we were lucky. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.9.10-100.fc17.x86_64 #1 SMP Sun Jul 14 01:31:27

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-27 Thread Matthew Miller
On Thu, Mar 27, 2014 at 12:43:15PM -0700, Rick Stevens wrote: > >>That ain't nuttin'. We started with an 11/45 with 48KB of core memory > >>and 2 RK05's (2.2MB removable cartridge disks). > >When I was young, we didn't have no computers. We used pencil and > >paper, and we were grateful. ;-) > A

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-27 Thread Rick Stevens
On 03/27/2014 09:10 AM, Tim issued this missive: Allegedly, on or about 26 March 2014, Patrick O'Callaghan sent: That ain't nuttin'. We started with an 11/45 with 48KB of core memory and 2 RK05's (2.2MB removable cartridge disks). When I was young, we didn't have no computers. We used pencil

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-27 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Fri, 2014-03-28 at 02:40 +1030, Tim wrote: > Allegedly, on or about 26 March 2014, Patrick O'Callaghan sent: > > That ain't nuttin'. We started with an 11/45 with 48KB of core > memory > > and 2 RK05's (2.2MB removable cartridge disks). > > When I was young, we didn't have no computers. We use

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-27 Thread Tim
Allegedly, on or about 26 March 2014, Patrick O'Callaghan sent: > That ain't nuttin'. We started with an 11/45 with 48KB of core memory > and 2 RK05's (2.2MB removable cartridge disks). When I was young, we didn't have no computers. We used pencil and paper, and we were grateful. ;-) -- [tim@

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-26 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Wed, 2014-03-26 at 22:42 +, Timothy Murphy wrote: > David G. Miller wrote: > > > The funny thing is that back in the earliest days of Unix, /usr is where > > user directories lived. When K&R ran out of room in / for programs, they > > looked to for a partition that had additional space av

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-26 Thread Liam Proven
On 26 March 2014 22:42, Timothy Murphy wrote: > > Yes, I recall that the first Unix system I ran, version 5 on a pdp-11/23, > had two (enormous) 10MB disks, one for the kernel and the other /usr . Wow. Well, that's *us* told. Schooled, even. 8-) -- Liam Proven * Profile: http://lproven.livej

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-26 Thread Timothy Murphy
David G. Miller wrote: > The funny thing is that back in the earliest days of Unix, /usr is where > user directories lived. When K&R ran out of room in / for programs, they > looked to for a partition that had additional space available and it was > /usr. Originally programs ended up in /usr/bi

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-26 Thread David G . Miller
Matthew Miller fedoraproject.org> writes: > > On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:50:10AM -0700, Howard Howell wrote: > > > It's important to realize that you *can* have a separate /usr -- it just > > > really needs to be available at boot time. That means you can have > > > separate mount options, files

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-25 Thread Matthew Miller
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 09:50:10AM -0700, Howard Howell wrote: > > It's important to realize that you *can* have a separate /usr -- it just > > really needs to be available at boot time. That means you can have > > separate mount options, filesystems, partition constraints, or whatever. > > It just

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-25 Thread Howard Howell
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 07:13 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:19:52PM +0100, lee wrote: > > >> /usr belongs on it`s own partition. > > > As if no one has ever said that before, and as if it convinced even one > > > thinking person to change their mind. > > Thinking perso

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-25 Thread Matthew Miller
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 01:09:12PM +0100, lee wrote: > > It's important to realize that you *can* have a separate /usr -- it just > > really needs to be available at boot time. > The F17 installer wouldn`t let me have it. Yeah, but F20 installer does. What was the complaint again? :) > > > That

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-25 Thread Patrick O'Callaghan
On Tue, 2014-03-25 at 13:09 +0100, lee wrote: > > That means you can have separate mount options, filesystems, > partition > > constraints, or whatever. It just doesn't work anymore to have it on > a > > network share or (if anyone ever did this!) removable media added > > after initial boot. > >

Re: the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-25 Thread lee
Matthew Miller writes: > On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:19:52PM +0100, lee wrote: >> >> /usr belongs on it`s own partition. >> > As if no one has ever said that before, and as if it convinced even one >> > thinking person to change their mind. >> Thinking persons do not need to change their minds

the "separate /usr" subthread

2014-03-25 Thread Matthew Miller
On Mon, Mar 24, 2014 at 08:19:52PM +0100, lee wrote: > >> /usr belongs on it`s own partition. > > As if no one has ever said that before, and as if it convinced even one > > thinking person to change their mind. > Thinking persons do not need to change their minds about it because they > realis