Re: [tlug] Using TAR

[Matt Doughty <mdoughty@example.com>]

I don't think that is what he means at all. I good system should have
a _small_ statically linked minimal required system, and it should fit
in 64M.  If you look at any decent NetBSD you will see exactly
what he means.  If you note, he pointed out that it should be what is
needed to boot the system, and provide operational capacity.  I know
a default RH install doesn't use 64MB for /bin(8M) and /lib(45M), and
that is with all the module garbage sitting in lib.  As for systems
that link /lib, and /bin to /usr/lib, and /usr/bin respectively are 
not doing the 'right thing'(TM). You are so busy trying to jump Chris
that you aren't checking your facts, and assuming that he thinks lib
and bin are links is just poor form in general.

--Matt
On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:13:23AM -0800, roy lo wrote:
> Apparently, you(chris) forgot the fact that /lib and /bin are NOT links 
> from /usr in linux. (For those of you didn't know; in Unix systems such 
> as Solaris, that /bin -> /usr/bin and /lib -> /usr/lib). So, your 
> suggested 64mb is going to have problem (in a linux standard 
> installation per say)
> 
> Also, in linux it is good to partition out /boot as well.
> (but since you said "classic" unix paryition last time, that is why I 
> didn't mention it.) *Again for those of you didn't know most unix system
> don't have /boot
> 
> 
> Christopher SEKIYA wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 08:35:50AM -0500, Josh Glover wrote:
> > 
> > 
> >>You have to remember, Chris, that things work a bit differently in the end 
> >>user world.
> >>
> > 
> > There is no excuse for RedHat/Mandrake excesses.  Requiring a 256Mb / is
> > practically criminal.
> > 
> > / is for bootstrap, /usr for base OS install (and with the capability of being
> > mounted ro), /var for the rw bits.  "Base OS install", in this case, should be
> > the dynamically-linked bits that are required for normal OS operation.
> > 
> > Everything else belongs in /opt (for vendor-supplied bits) or /usr/local
> > (for local modifications).  Period.  That's the way it was decreed by the
> > wise UNIX lords of times past, for good reason.
> > 
> > The *BSDs are fairly good about sticking to these guidelines.  The various
> > linux distributions apparently don't give a damn about recoverability, past
> > practice, or sanity.
> > 
> > 
> >>And most people simply aren't capable of running through their list of RPMs
> >>and uninstalling everything they don't need.
> >>
> > 
> > Those who cannot determine what they need to be running should not be running
> > UNIX.  They want stability, they should buy a Mac.
> > 
> > 
> >>What I am trying to get at here is that the partitioning scheme for modern 
> >>desktop Linux boxen is very different from that of a server.
> >>
> > 
> > There should not be a difference.  The fact that a difference does exist means
> > that the various distro producers no longer care to follow past/best practice.
> > 
> > -- Chris
> > 
> > 
> 
>