I like that FreeBSD dedicates a man page, HIER(7), on this topic - https://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=hier - "layout of file systems"
Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
31–40 of 131 posts
Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
#32Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Note that Arch follows the systemd FHS convention of symlinking" The Systemd convention? What the fuck? Does Systemd have to touch everything??
Systemd walks into a bar, shoots the owner, proclaims it is the new owner, turns the bar into a casino, adds a hotel, a grocery store and an init system.
Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
#33How badly would things break if we tried to "fix" this split today?
Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
#34For all people that think this is still a issue: it is not: * Arch Linux: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_filesystem_hierarc... * Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove * Debian: https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge * Ubuntu: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/Quantal/UsrMer... And this is true for quite a long time. I think the last distro that did /usr merge is Debian and this is a…
Arch still occasionally has some packages installed to /opt. Annoying as hell, but they expect to be there for some reason. Android-studio was the latest unexpected surprise for me.
Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
#35For all people that think this is still a issue: it is not: * Arch Linux: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Arch_filesystem_hierarc... * Fedora: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/UsrMove * Debian: https://wiki.debian.org/UsrMerge * Ubuntu: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/FoundationsTeam/Specs/Quantal/UsrMer... And this is true for quite a long time. I think the last distro that did /usr merge is Debian and this is a…
"Note that Arch follows the systemd FHS convention of symlinking" The Systemd convention? What the fuck? Does Systemd have to touch everything??
systemd itself does not depend on being on a UsrMerge'd system, and otherwise, the proposal does not have anything to do with systemd.
From https://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseFor...
"Note that this page discusses a topic that is actually independent of systemd."
Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
#36Earlier quoted context omitted.
Systemd walks into a bar, shoots the owner, proclaims it is the new owner, turns the bar into a casino, adds a hotel, a grocery store and an init system.
systemd opens a new bar right next to the most popular bar in town, becomes far more popular (possibly due to better advertising), people complain that their beer tastes worse, and when other people tell them to just go to the original bar, they complain that all their friends are at the new bar.
Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
#37MacPorts use /opt/local :)
Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder if people even know what those restrictions are and how exactly the anti-tivoisation clause works. It does not forbid anyone from running software on tivoised devices, which is what some people seem to think it does. All that it requires is that if you distribute the software primarily to be used on a User Product (as GPLv3 calls it), then as part of the installation information (which in GPLv2 used to just…
Or to put it another way, GPLv3 mandates that your hardware be insecure (because you cannot prevent a malicious actor from installing malicious software on someone's device, which would normally be done by requiring all updates to be codesigned by the manufacturer). And it's not just limited to software that would be installed on the hardware; companies like Apple won't even allow employees to install GPLv3 software…
I think that's wrong: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GiveUpKeys:
> I use public key cryptography to sign my code to assure its authenticity. Is it true that GPLv3 forces me to release my private signing keys? (#GiveUpKeys)
> No. The only time you would be required to release signing keys is if you conveyed GPLed software inside a User Product, and its hardware checked the software for a valid cryptographic signature before it would function. In that specific case, you would be required to provide anyone who owned the device, on demand, with the key to sign and install modified software on his device so that it will run. If each instance of the device uses a different key, then you need only give each purchaser the key for his instance.
It sounds like a manufacturer could ship a GPLv3-compliant User Product with two signing keys: a secret one known only to the manufacturer, and a second per-device key than can be used by the end-user to install modified software. Such a manufacturer wouldn't be forced to disclose their signing key because the user already has access to an equivalent.
I also imagine it would be kosher for the device to provide the user the option, in the name of security, to permanently clear the second per-device key, so only manufacturer updates can ever be installed.
> companies like Apple won't even allow employees to install GPLv3 software on their work computer because if a single piece of GPLv3-licensed code makes it into iOS, even completely accidentally, the license demands that Apple release their root signing keys to the world, completely destroying the security of hundreds of millions of devices.
If Apple is behaving that way, it's Apple's own fault, not the GPLv3's. They could have chosen to design their software in a way that would have given them better options if they are ever forced to comply with the GPLv3, but they chose not to.
Re: Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split (2010)
#391. NFS mounts. Your local or initial BOOTP image has a minimal root, your (non-root-writeable, BTW) NFS /usr has Other Stuff.
2. Mount options. Root is often (and perhaps still must be -- /etc/mtab for example -- I've stopped closely tracking discussion to make root fully read-only) writeable. It may also require other mount permissions, including device files and suid. Other partitions don't require these permissions, and there is some Principle of Least Privilege benefit to mounting such partitions without them. /usr requires suid, but not dev, and may be nonwriteable except for OS updates.
3. Recovery partition. I'll frequently stash a second root partition, not typically mounted. It has minimal tools, but enough to bootstrap the system if the primary is hosed for whatever reason (more often myself than any other). Without a clean / /usr split, this becomes more complicated.