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

Re: RHEL 5 : statically linked shell for root?



hike,

>Date: Thu, 29 May 2008 09:05:20 -0400
>From: hike <mh1272 gmail com>  
>On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 8:52 AM, mark <m roth2006 rcn com> wrote:
>
>> hike wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 29, 2008 at 3:18 AM, Rubens Gomes <rubens_gomes hotmail com>
>> > wrote:
>> <snip>
>> > My question is. "Why do you make a separate mount point for /usr?".
>> >
>> > In the old days of UNIX/SunOS, the hard drives were small and we were
>> forced to have separate mount points for /, /var, /usr, 
>> /opt, /usr/openwin for
<snip>
>> As I said in the article I published in SysAdmin last year (before it went
>> under) on upgrading Linux, you want that so that when you do an upgrade,
>> you can rename it, then have a new partition for /usr, and let the install
>> format that. That way, a) it's a "clean install", and b) you can fall back with a
>> few renames in single user mode.
>
>You just need space for another filesystem if you want to do what you
>indicate what the article says and do not, necessarily, need to separate

Yup. And given that all of Linux is < 10G for the o/s, in these days of cheap storage, it's not unreasonable. Also, the installs - when you're going up a full release, not just a subrelease, *alL* want to upgrade everything.
<snip>
>By the way, I enjoy how you are always quoting/referring to article.  You
>must be quite proud of yourself.  Funny though, you never 

Well, yeah, I'm happy to have an article for which I was paid for publication: not much, but it's professional. And when it does cover stuff that's related to what we're talking about, why shouldn't I?

tell which issue
>of Sysadmin your ariticle was in!

July 2007. I think the mag went under with the Sept. issue. (Not my fault! <g>)

         mark


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