Re: [tlug] Using TAR

[roy lo <roylo@example.com>]

I know that, but don't forget the fact that directorys like /lib can 
grow in size. And he is got /sbin and /boot in / as well (accroding to 
his partition style). For argument's sake you can install those "after" 
softwares into /usr/bin or /usr/lib, etc. as well. But any reasonable 
system admin. won't let himself to be in that kinda of mess (always have 
"at least" 20%-30% of free space on a partition.)

I'm not trying to jump on Chris, I only try to point out where I think 
is incorrect.


 > that link /lib, and /bin to /usr/lib, and /usr/bin respectively are
 > not doing the 'right thing'(TM).
Wrong, that is the style that most unix systems use. Take a look at any 
solaris box and you will see that.




Matt Doughty wrote:
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>