[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: why are there /bin and /usr/bin...

On August 15, 2010 04:30:04 pm Perry E. Metzger wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 03:15:35 -0600 Bruce Sass <bmsass@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > /sbin and /usr/sbin, /lib and /usr/lib directories?
> >
> > AFAICT, the reason is so that a minimal but functional system is
> > guaranteed to exist so long as a local HDD with a root filesystem
> > is available (which doesn't necessarily include /usr);
> The true reason is that back in ancient days, hard drives were too
> small to put everything in one place, so ancient Unix machines at
> Bell Labs in the 1970s ended up with some programs on the root disk
> and some on the same supplementary disk where the home directories
> were typically put. This was not done with any great forethought, it
> was simply a temporary expediency. Because / was on the boot disk, it
> was necessary to make sure that every program needed for initial boot
> was there, and thus some programs were more important to put in /bin
> and the like. ...

Thanks. I like the "onion" story, I don't think it is entirely fitting 
though--to gain the benefit of that dollar or so worth of HDD space I'd 
need to effectively re-tool to get it installed... if it was necessary 
to replace the vat (shutdown production, remove a wall or two, rewire 
the controls, etc.) to get rid of the onion I suspect they'd still be 
used in some older varnish plants.

What I'd really like to see is support for a shared /usr hierarchy and a 
way to optionally push configs onto separate boxes. Such a setup would 
be useful in a classroom or office where it is desirable for everyone 
to have the same software installed and there are enough boxes that 
maintaining them as independent units can be expensive.

- Bruce

Reply to: