Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 310 posts

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#201

Post by tremon »

Beltalowda wrote: post #196
upofadown wrote: post #131

>Improved compatibility with other Unixes/Linuxes... A quick check reveals that OpenBSD presently has separate /bin and /sbin. FreeBSD also has a separate /lib. Exactly what were the other Unixes/Linuxes that this was supposed to improve compatibility with? I hope was not just Solaris...

OpenBSD also has /usr/X11R6, where it puts the X stuff (their X distro is named Xenocara). This is another piece of legacy from back when you might want to have both /usr/X11R2 and /usr/X11R3. These days the X11R6 directory actually contains X11R7 shrug . FreeBSD used to do this too, but got rid of it in FreeBSD 6 (I think? Maybe 7? About ten years ago). Both systems install packages to /usr/local.

Both systems install packages to /usr/local

That's because "packages" in the BSD world (at least openbsd) are considered third-party options, the base system is considered static. Linux distributions don't really have the notion of a static base system with "package" addons, the distribution packages are the system.

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#202

Post by felixgallo »

nickcw wrote: post #89

Just in case anyone is wondering why we had (or used to have) /bin and /sbin directories as well as /usr/bin /usr/sbin here is my understanding of it. It is because on old Unix systems there frequently wasn't enough space to store /usr on the root disk. Therefore /usr was a separate disk which might not be available during boot. This meant that you needed to put all the binaries you needed for boot in /bin and /sbin…

This is not correct.

Separate /bin and /sbin were so that Unix systems could start with a small, minimal, clean root disk that could be read only or effectively read only. The /usr partition was sometimes mounted separately, but this was more for proper organizational/systems design division than it was for disk space reasons.

This is still a useful division in many Unix systems today (e.g. IOT) where starting from a known-good minimal image and then layering filesystems on top can help reduce complexity and prune the debugging tree.

It's not surprising that the ibm/redhat/systemd/freedesktop crowd doesn't care about this stuff, but it's unfortunate.

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#203

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

felixgallo wrote: post #202
nickcw wrote: post #89

Just in case anyone is wondering why we had (or used to have) /bin and /sbin directories as well as /usr/bin /usr/sbin here is my understanding of it. It is because on old Unix systems there frequently wasn't enough space to store /usr on the root disk. Therefore /usr was a separate disk which might not be available during boot. This meant that you needed to put all the binaries you needed for boot in /bin and /sbin…

This is not correct. Separate /bin and /sbin were so that Unix systems could start with a small, minimal, clean root disk that could be read only or effectively read only. The /usr partition was sometimes mounted separately, but this was more for proper organizational/systems design division than it was for disk space reasons. This is still a useful division in many Unix systems today (e.g. IOT) where starting from a…

Rob Landley doesn't agree:

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074...

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#204

Post by goodpoint »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #126
goodpoint wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The biggest wars and massacres in human history always involved some monarchy/dictatorship.

Communism as the rule of "the proletariat" instead of a ruling nobility has created the worst horrors of the 20th century. You may think of monarchy and communism as the same thing "because they are dictatorships", because the frame of reference you are used to is contrasting everything to "democracy", but they really really are not.

facepalm

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#205

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

mwcampbell wrote: post #116
andrepd wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Poor businesses forced to build ramps and make their websites screenreader-accessible" seems a distinctly weird take to me. If we're no longer taking even the slightest bit of care towards looking after our fellow Man then it's not a world worth living to me. EDIT: It's also not just a "tiny minority", about 13% of the world's population have serious vision impairment. Making streets, businesses, services, products…

One can only be exposed to so much backlash from seemingly reasonable people before wondering if they're actually right.

"Seemingly reasonable" is a poor place to start.

It's somehow similar to the way so many of us expect actually evil people to somehow come with horns or other evil-indicating visual accessories. The reality is that evil people wear suits, and jeans, and shorts and hats and look just like the non-evil people.

So it is with "reasonable". The fact that someone can phrase their objections to accessibility that doesn't make them immediately sound like a prejudiced ignorant lunatic doesn't actually mean that they are not a prejudiced ignorant lunatic (it doesn't mean that they are either, but you should remain suspicious).

For myself, I had a revelation about such matters when my daughter had major hip surgery (twice). While normally a fully mobile and athletic person, she had to spend several weeks (twice) with a wheelchair. Suddenly it became clear that the accomodations we have made in this direction are not just for people born with disabilities that prevent them from walking: any one of us could find ourselves, either temporarily or permanently, benefitting from ramps and door openers and curb cuts etc.

I am absolutely certain that the same is also true of accomodations made in the direction of visual impairment, hearing impairment and just about any other condition that deviates from some (often hypothetical) state of "full functionality".

Please, protect yourself from the backlash from these "seemingly reasonable" people. They are ignorant, selfish and of limited scope in their thinking. You deserve better.

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#206

Post by busterarm »

raphman wrote: post #26
busterarm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're talking about things that distro maintainers care about, namely servers. They are primarily not concerned with your workstation.

Lennart Poettering, the author of the proposal and creator of e.g., systemd, avahi, and pulseaudio, definitely cares about workstations, I'd say.

And if you recall correctly in the Debian community, adopting his systemd was a long and challenging 2-year long debate. Debian adopted systemd three years after Fedora did. Afterwards multiple senior contributors resigned from their positions due to extraordinary stress levels caused by ongoing disputes about systemd.

So when I tell you the Debian community mainly cares about servers, I'm not bullshitting you and I know who the fuck Lennart is.

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#207

Post by busterarm »

0des wrote: post #135
raphman wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lennart Poettering, the author of the proposal and creator of e.g., systemd, avahi, and pulseaudio, definitely cares about workstations, I'd say.

His workstations, and not to be snooty about it either, it's just like some people prefer crunchy peanut butter, and some people ruin their lives with creamy. I liked init systems of yore. I don't ask to toss out systems because its very useful in some settings, however, I prefer the init systems we had, when it comes to my personal workstation preferences.

All of my non-professional work systems are OpenBSD and I will tell you that BSD init is a friggin breeze.

Sadly that ship has sailed, but it's finally 10-12 years later that there are some niceties to systemd that make it worth it to me (systemd-resolved in particular).

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#208

Post by busterarm »

tzs wrote: post #23
busterarm wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're talking about things that distro maintainers care about, namely servers. They are primarily not concerned with your workstation.

Was Solaris more used than HP-UX or AIX in 2012?

I'm still interviewing sysadmins from banks who have legacy systems to support and Solaris is probably 10:1 over HP-UX.

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#209

Post by tremon »

egberts1 wrote: post #186
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does this minimise security? I don't see how Window is relevant; it doesn't have /usr nor /usr/bin.

Precisely, Windows have centralized directories for system executables.

Perhaps it would be better if you stopped implying and started to make your point explicitly. Because if your point is that there is some security boundary in Windows that allows an application installer to write to %PROGRAMFILES% but not to \WINDOWS\SYSTEM32, then you are sorely mistaken.

Re: Debian still having trouble with merged /usr

#210

Post by s28l »

torstenvl wrote: post #166
Tor3 wrote: post #9

I understand the problem dpkg is facing (can't know the canonical pathname for an object is, in some cases), but I have huge problems understanding why a symlink farm is preferable. The last thing I want to see on my Debian system is directories with hundreds or maybe thousands of symlink entries. There must be a way to let dpkg do its job if the directory-symlink approach is used instead, surely? (/bin -> /usr/bin)

If we're linking hundreds of individual files on a single large partition, why not make them hard links and avoid the clutter?

It's entirely possible that /usr might be a separate partition from /, so hardlinks wouldn't work.
Post reply on HN