Mailinglist Archive: opensuse (770 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse] Separate /usr?
On Thu, 2012-08-09 at 21:02 +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
On 08/09/2012 05:36 PM, Brian K. White wrote:
I think it's at least safe to say that it's no one's place to try to
tell anyone else, let alone everyone else, something as sweeping as
"there is no use for separate /usr".
Asking why someone does it is the wrong question. They do. And they have
their reasons. And the OS needs to support it. Or else become less
useful and useful to less.
It's interesting that in this thread - if I didn't miss anything - many
people told why having separate partitions are useful. I agree with
that. I just don't remember seeing a use case why a separate /usr is
beneficial. Yes, people do it - and openSUSE continues to support it -
but the only reasons I'm aware of are historical like [1].
So, what is the reason to create a separate /usr with openSUSE 12.2?
Please educate me ;)

IMNSHO, there are none / zero reasons for a dedicated /usr partition.

And the world is frowning on the practice. Modern systems, especially
desktops, are complicated and require a variety of services to spin up
at boot [you have wireless security, possibly VPNs, possibly
cryptography, hot-plug support for USB and other busses, bluetooth, HID,
etc...] and get the machine to a "normal" state. So having this nicely
organized in the root volume [ /sbin, /etc, /sbin, /bin, /lib ] is just
a nicer way to do it.

I'm sure they exist but *I* have never seen a thin client that mount's
the *server's* /usr; so I don't really believe that is relevant either
[and I'd consider it very odd, and just a bad idea]. Last I saw that
type of mounting was far back in the day when not-thin "workstations"
mounted points of the server to their own hierarchy to save precious
disk space. It meant central updates broke things, network outages
broke workstations, and that performance was hobbled - pretty much
everyone stopped doing that once disks got cheap enough.
< Previous Next >
Follow Ups