Le 23/07/2015 23:53, Chris Murphy a écrit :

# cd ~ # du -sh *

Or you could try

# du -ah | sort -r

But that will display all files, by size from largest to smallest and your problem might be piles of medium or small files.

I was hit very recently by such problem on android: on a basic smartphone, the system update file (500Mb) was still present as dot file. I had to dig in system folders to see this and could remove it. by the way (sorry, I didn't read all the thread), did this system use BTRFS? jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 6:06 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

Not only do I consider this a good reason for having a separate /tmp, it makes me very nervous about the BtrFS attitude of the One File System To Rule Them All that is More Efficient If It Uses Subvolumes Instead Of Partitions. I *like* hard boundaries.

Use quotas.

By the standards of many here my view of partitioning, as facilitated by LVM, may seem ridiculous, but it also eases backups (many partitions are under 5G so can slide onto a DVD nicely), lets me try out optimizations and even lets me see how other file systems compare. Well OK, some of that (e.g. RootFS on BtrFS vs ReiserFS vs XFS vs ext4) has more to do with LVM.

On HDD it must be the identical partition to do fs benchmarking. Windows and OS X have a long, long, long history of single filesystem installations. Wayward applications filling up the drive are just not common enough a problem for their companies to use two or more partitions in attempt to avoid OS face planting due to running out of space due to a process gone crazy. This is not merely default, but there isn't even the option in their installer or partition utility to do it any differently. Pointing a backup program to a directory or volume should make zero difference in terms of ease. Arguably any backup program that differs in this regard, or wayward misbehaving programs that fill up all volume space are poorly designed.

Having ~Mail ~Downloads, ~Documents, ~Photographs and ~Music on separate FS not only isolates them for backup, it also isolates them if things go wild elsewhere so I can keep on working.

My dot file in $HOME add up to nearly 3G. WOW! Are there potential runaways there? Possibly. Would it be nice to be able to back them up separately as well? Arguably.

The takeaway here is that partitioning (and being able to unmount and 'protect') even the subdirectories of $HOME can be useful in a number of ways including putting limits on how space can be consumed. Hard partitions are useful.

If, like the OP, I find my /home partition filling, i know for use it is not anything in ~Documents, ~Downloads ... and so forth.

I also know that I can download into ~Downloads without it affecting work I'm doing in ~Documents ... and so forth.

It may seem excessive to some but that's often the way with "safety measures". I *know* that there are whole class of events that I don't have to worry about.

And a whole class of events you do have to worry about - everything that would be a move is a copy+delete event, installation and restore is more complicated, you can't hard link anything, the chance of mount failures goes up. I think it's a completely uncompelling layout. I grant a separate /home makes clean installs easier. Windows and OS X get around this with fairly mature unidimensional installers, long standing standardized layouts and fs hierarchies that they have fairly reliable in place upgrades. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

On 07/24/2015 10:40 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:

...

Use quotas.

You mean instead of traiffs?

That may make (some? more?) sense in a mutli-use context, but for a single user home system its an administrative detail I don't need.

Versus dithering on how to partition a drive, versus always having to overestimate the amount of space because resizing is yet another admin detail. I will bet dollars to donuts users who engage in such excessive partitioning buy bigger drives, so the habit costs them more money too. Since it's a home computer, all the more reason to just single partition and forget about it. Most computer users have no understanding of partitions anyway - it's esoteric. Basic knowledge for an admin, esoteric knowledge for anybody else.

The issue is ALWAYS what happens when you come to the of the available space, no matter how it is managed.

If we are talking about legitimate use, then the limit needs to be raised. Example, I'm uploading & processing yet another roll of film from my camera (or card from my DSLR).

If we are talking about an illegitimate use, the runaway process example I mentioned, then we need to fix the process.

In either case it doens't matter what the boundary mechanism is; the important thing is that there is one.

The available empirical data proves the opposite. Given a fixed drive size, due to the inefficiency brought on my additional partitions, I'm more likely as a user on a home computer to run out of space on /home performing legitimate operations. And now I'm stuck with yet another admin task which is resizing /home - assuming that's even possible. Partitioning is mainly an aid to sysadmins and infrastructure people, it just adds complexity for users. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 10:43 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

On 07/24/2015 12:14 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:

...

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Anton Aylward wrote:

...

On 07/24/2015 10:40 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:

...

Use quotas.

You mean instead of traiffs?

That may make (some? more?) sense in a mutli-use context, but for a single user home system its an administrative detail I don't need.

Versus dithering on how to partition a drive, versus always having to overestimate the amount of space because resizing is yet another admin detail.

Are you not paying attention? You are talking about the classical problem with partitioning that used to annoy the hell out of me in the old PDP-11 and SCO UNIX days, and still does with ext4, of determining provision in advance of actual use.

OK and this is made more likely a problem when partitioning than when not partitioning.

The reasons for partitioning still hold. Making /tmp noexec,nosuid is a security fix. Having a seperate /tmp means no hard links which is another security fix. Having seperate /var, /local and more makes upgrading easier if you need to wipe the RootFS. And so on.

Choose: A. The risk is overblown. AppArmour and SELinux should contain such things, and if not it's a bug that needs to be fixed. B. All Linux distros have risky default installs seeing as none of them by default use the layout you describe.

The way around the provisioning problem that I found as simple;

1. Use LVM. Not only can you grow/shrink partitions, you can use additional drive or parts of drives.

LVM is automatically in sysadmin territory, not end user.

2. Use ReiserFS (or XFS) so you don't have to figure out how many inodes you need ahead of time.

This is nonsense for a home user. And XFS isn't shrinkable, so you better not overestimate. Ooh, the stress of a decision, let's have a burrito while we think about PARTITIONING for another hour...

...

I will bet dollars to donuts users who engage in such excessive partitioning buy bigger drives, so the habit costs them more money too.

HO HO HO, very funny. Big dives, the 1 Terabyte, are cheaper than the ones half that size at most outlets I visit.

And anyway, using LVM I can mix and match, use any drive I have, of any size. I can even mix SATA with ATA with IDE.

Blah blah blah, LVM ninjitsu is required for all of this. And you were complaining about the admin headache of quotas? LVM is emacs for storage. It's a UI nightmare.

If I really wanted to save money I could pick up old small drives from thrift stores and garage sales, check the bad blocks out when i build the LVM and LO! You whole argument falls apart in another direction.

See this is why I think user facing partitioning is neurotic nonsense. Within minutes it turns into arguing with the partition ninja gleefully exposing his narcissism by showing off what HE can do, rather than being an advocate for all users. It's like a Stuart skit, "look what I can do!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WyvbFMGmImg You like LVM, and it helps you do things you need to do, that's fine. But for the vast majority, on a home computer, it's esoteric nonsense. It's not basic computer knowledge.

Working with the multi spindle "old iron" of the PDP/VAX days I learnt that the parallelism of IO was a powerful thing!

...

Since it's a home computer, all the more reason to just single partition and forget about it. Most computer users have no understanding of partitions anyway - it's esoteric. Basic knowledge for an admin, esoteric knowledge for anybody else.

Ah. you one of those who believe that Joe Six-pack has (a) no understanding of what's "under the hood" of Linux because he's been dumbed down by years of using Microsoft and the very basic UI of the iPod; and (b) he has no curiosity about How Things Work other than the innards of his GTO.

Well that may be true for the weenies who stick with Windows of the people who just want to GTD using OSX on over-priced single sourced hardware, but Linux seems to attract people who like to know what's going on "under the hood" and try things out.

Umm, well I'm on quite a range of forums and a metric ton of Linux users have heard of LVM and are decently familiar with the concept but overwhelmingly they are not proficient at using it. It's not used by default on Ubuntu since forever, and openSUSE doesn't use it by default (anymore?), while Fedora does and it trips up users all the time. I advocate for those who use a computer to get things done rather than playing around for hours with on disk layouts. I'm one of those that thinks there are better technologies on Linux than what Microsoft and Apple have to offer, but the coddling of ninjas, and lack of discipline sucks resources away from making Linux distros mature enough to be used by masses rather than as primarily for servers or by computer geeks who just like to tinker and understand. There's more to an eco system than having people who understand how something works; you have to have people who actually use the tool to get other things done. And for that to happen they can't be f'n around with otherwise useless shit like partitioning. Figure out *one layout* that works, and apply it to everyone, always, for 10 years, until the ninjas figure out something better. Microsoft, Apple, are successful in the desktop space because they say no effectively. They make decent choices for the user under the hood and prevent them from options that the user will either have difficulty supporting or those that company doesn't want to support. It's called focus. And when you look at the best that GNOME and KDE have done, it's when they say no. When they have focus. It's not when they say yes to everyone's wishes and just add more ways to ultimately do the same thing. Hidden partitions do help out the user. Android/Cyanogenmod phones have dozens of partitions, but the user never sees this, nor knows about it, nor can they change it. And yet they benefit from things like stateless resets, and easy upgrades that result - easier than any Linux distro, easier than OS X, and about on par now with Windows 8.1. So if there is some clear advantage to such highly granular partitioning schemes, it should be the default. And like I've said before you can see this in the default Btrfs subvolume structure, which involves 15 subvolumes, to carve things out for the snapshot and rollback strategy. I've got some criticisms of this, but overall it does what it was designed to do, and the user really doesn't have to think about it, and nor should they. They should just be able to get good safe results with the defaults. And they do. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 12:27 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:

On 07/24/2015 01:18 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:

...

I advocate for those who use a computer to get things done rather than playing around for hours with on disk layouts. I'm one of those that thinks there are better technologies on Linux than what Microsoft and Apple have to offer, but the coddling of ninjas, and lack of discipline sucks resources away from making Linux distros mature enough to be used by masses rather than as primarily for servers or by computer geeks who just like to tinker and understand. There's more to an eco system than having people who understand how something works; you have to have people who actually use the tool to get other things done. And for that to happen they can't be f'n around with otherwise useless shit like partitioning. Figure out *one layout* that works, and apply it to everyone, always, for 10 years, until the ninjas figure out something better.

One Right to Rule Them All.

Indeed. So why do we have that range of models from Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota? Why do we have the two seater cars and stretch limos? Walk into a Staples and look at the range of calculators they have ... then at the HP calculators that use RPN.

Bad analogy. Models of cars = distros and their various products (I've lost count how many variations of even official Fedoras there are including spins... a lot) Four wheels, brakes, gasoline/battery, headlights, taillights, etc = standardized partitioning scheme. A car is a car - I can drive any model competently with minor adjustment. That is completely not true with Linux distros, they are different OS's that happen to share a kernel, basically.

Part of the success of the UNIX/Linux is that it is unconstrained, so flexible, that is gets cut and sliced in so many different varieties and derivatives. The whole world isn't Windows or OSX.

The most successful Linux is Mint, by the numbers, and it's successful *again* for what it does not do more than what it does do. It's enacts discipline and safety and ease of use by constraining the choices. When it comes to the success of the kernel, sure, I agree it's a measured balance of unconstrained (out of tree stuff) and the constrained (Linus saying fuck you no this does not go in mainline).

I'm not denying that there are people who don't want to look under the hood, even of Linux. But this forum is about people that do. I'm not preaching to front office types. I know that even the people here will have their 'toys' that they don't take apart. My phone, tablet are 'production" not "development", even for me.

But even when it comes to phones and tablets there's no 'one layout" that works. People choose the apps they need, configure then how they need. Even the less technically sophisticated now about things like memory cards; even the less technical executives know about the business vs person mechanisms to keep those two apart. Even the less technically adroit will try out different music players, different video players, different cloud storage.

OK.

...

Microsoft, Apple, are successful in the desktop space because they say no effectively. They make decent choices for the user under the hood and prevent them from options that the user will either have difficulty supporting or those that company doesn't want to support.

That's a very naive way of looking at it. Also very limited. There are situations where the limited decision space can be useful. The military does this by training, training, training so that some things become reflex and you don't have to stop and think about them. If you've been driving shift for a few years you'll know this: you don't have to stop and think about speak and engine revs and are you going up hill or down and what weight you are towing -- you just change gears at the right time without thinking about it.

The boundary between what DOES get standardized - where the pedals are - is one thing. But what you can make with the car SHOULD YOU CHOOSE TO is quite another.

And I consider partioning to be basic infrastructure, not at all user facing. Almost nothing good ever comes from users sharing partitioning information. Engineers putting it together, and making it a default layout, yes that's good: openSUSE default Btrfs layout, hallmark. Rough edges, needs smoothing, some adjustments, but it's innovation and the user doesn't have to even be one wit aware of it to benefit. Same for the Project Atomic / OSTree work, it's badass. Atomic updates, rollbacks, you don't even need Btrfs, it's designed to work on ext4 or XFS with or without LVM. That's infrastructure working to benefit the user.

One of the primary differences between Windows and Linux is already there in the decision space. You have to decide to install Linux. Yes you could be given an installer that, as I've pointed out elsewhere, uses an autoyast script to make the installer do anything! ANYTHING, absolutely anything. I once tried setting it up so that it wouldn't install on anything less that a 250G drive and would create /boot, /swap and a LVM and then a pile of LVM LEs, consulting the person doing the install only for his name and password and time zone. So don't try telling what the installer does, because it does whatever you tell it. We've seen that with different version of openSuse over the years working quite differently. That they now do a BtrFS RootFS is part of the script. Complain enough and that will be changed. heck, its only the autoyast script!

And yes I've asked Novell about this: "If you want we'll provide a master install DVD for you that works that way ..." its just a script after all.

As for preventing making choices that the user will have problems with... HA HA HA. Defaulting to BtrFS has seen a lot of problems for a lot of users, so I'm not convinced.

Well it's a new file system, and openSUSE was a bit aggressive getting into the hands of users I think. That sometimes happens when innovating. But I think the main problem is snapper is not being aggressive enough with its cleanup of aggressive snapshotting. so either reduced frequency snapshots or more cleanups are needed. That's a tweak, I'm not sure if it's pushed to updates or not, but in my opinion it should be. Anyway the point is that defaults *ought* to be safe, and should represent the best overall choice, not knowing anything else. Or at the very least, it's do no harm. If that's not the reality, then it was a bad decision to make it the default. The one that continues to get my goat is Default in libvirt/virt-manager contexts. It's like, don't make me go lookup what Default is. The underlying hypervisors need to communicate upward what their default is, and the pop-up menu should show the actual setting, not the word "Default" which is utterly meaningless. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Jul 24, 2015 at 2:30 PM, Anton Aylward wrote:

On 07/24/2015 03:20 PM, Chris Murphy wrote:

...

...

...

Indeed. So why do we have that range of models from Ford, Chrysler, GM, Toyota? Why do we have the two seater cars and stretch limos? Walk into a Staples and look at the range of calculators they have ... then at the HP calculators that use RPN. Bad analogy.

Models of cars = distros and their various products (I've lost count how many variations of even official Fedoras there are including spins... a lot)

Four wheels, brakes, gasoline/battery, headlights, taillights, etc = standardized partitioning scheme.

Not for long and possibly not at all. The diversity in Europe is wider than in the US. Six wheeled cars are common enough; in China and Indo-china two wheeled cars are commonplace.

Right now we are seeing many shifts. it used to be that headlights were standardized - those "sealed beam" units. Now the size and shape and nature of headlamps is all over the place and you have the option of LEDS. Or better still, you can even go for after market replacement of your xenon tube headlight with leds.

We are already seeing the shift away from fossil fuels.

There is an analogy here with cell phones. When the first came out they resembled regular phones. You carried what amounted to a satchel that had all the doings and opened it up and there was a hand set on a cord that was just like a regular land line sets hand set. Well OK, even when we had digital dialling they still had rotary dials because they were familiar. As people get used to new ways of doing things we can move on. The modern cell phone ... well its evolved into a small tablet crossed with an iPod. The hand set has gone. The idea of holding it up to the side of your face as you did with the old handsets is going away too.

A lot of what you see as a "car" is more a result of (a) it has stopped looking like EXACTLY like a horseless carriage like the early ones, but its still enough like one that you could, in the absence of suitable hydrocarbons, fasten a horse to it.

Another analogy is planes. The traditional cross shaped plane just HAS to fly, but some of the military ones are just lifting bodies with powerplants; they can fly at any angle. Think of the old WW2 movies with the planes doing strafing runs. They had a limited scope in the dive and pull-out when there guns were pointing low enough. Some modern warcraft can - almost- fly nose-down for extended stretches. they can fly with one wing blown off. Normal ideas of "aerodynamics" no longer apply.

What cars will evolve into when we great away from the current model -- who knows.

...

A car is a car - I can drive any model competently with minor adjustment.

People like Felix and myself can. We've discussed things like vehicles with non sycromesh gears, high turn ratio non powered steering (power steering was invented so women could drive heavy American cars; women always could drive lighter, smaller European cars). Some towed vehicles, some things like harvesters and logging machines have strange steering properties. Towing, especial reversing with a long load, is, well, different. BTDT. But I've met many people who thought that because they could drive an American car on an American highway could cope elsewhere. I've met many counterexamples. To my mind this tells me you can't just go around saying "a car is a car".

Bad analogy != imperfect analogy. -- Chris Murphy -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Carlos E. R. composed on 2015-07-25 01:28 (UTC+0200):

Anton Aylward wrote:

...

Not for long and possibly not at all. The diversity in Europe is wider than in the US. Six wheeled cars are common enough; in China and Indo-china two wheeled cars are commonplace.

I have not seen any six wheel car. It makes me think of American limousines, though.

Lots of Americans run around in these and think of them as "cars": http://bumpersuperstore.com/images/M104084634.jpg Many use them for towing horse and boat trailers. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

Le 25/07/2015 01:56, Felix Miata a écrit :

Carlos E. R. composed on 2015-07-25 01:28 (UTC+0200):

...

I have not seen any six wheel car. It makes me think of American limousines, though.

Lots of Americans run around in these and think of them as "cars": http://bumpersuperstore.com/images/M104084634.jpg

for me, a six wheels car is this kind: http://www.networlddirectory.com/images/blogs/9-2009/cars-with-6-wheels.jpg never seen one out of Formula one long time ago jdd -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/25/2015 05:43 AM, Patrick Shanahan wrote:

These thread deviations are what drives away contributors from this list and reduces the list's worth as a linux aid by inflating the noise level.

Not quite true. There is such a thing as comic relief to break up the monotony of any forum. Besides, some aftermarket vehicle computers are linux-based so, if you want to get really technical .... Of course, any whipping of a dead horse ain't kosher and OT is OT and extending the thread past the original punch line ain't cool. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/25/2015 10:28 AM, Billie Walsh wrote:

Modern automobiles are four wheeled computers with passenger space.

And being so are quite hackable! But since this isn't a 'hacking' forum ... -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

* Anton Aylward [07-24-15 20:24]:

On 07/24/2015 07:28 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

I have not seen any six wheel car. It makes me think of American limousines, though.

Belongs in offtopic list. Please, Please Please take it there! X-Mailinglist: opensuse-offtopic List-Post: mailto:opensuse-offtopic@opensuse.org List-Help: mailto:opensuse-offtopic+help@opensuse.org List-Subscribe: mailto:opensuse-offtopic+subscribe@opensuse.org List-Unsubscribe: mailto:opensuse-offtopic+unsubscribe@opensuse.org List-Owner: mailto:opensuse-offtopic+owner@opensuse.org Please! -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA @ptilopteri http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member facebook/ptilopteri http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/24/2015 07:28 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

...

...

Right now we are seeing many shifts. it used to be that headlights were standardized - those "sealed beam" units. Now the size and shape and nature of headlamps is all over the place and you have the option of LEDS. Or better still, you can even go for after market replacement of your xenon tube headlight with leds.

Well, in Spain changing the lights is illegal, making the car non road worthy. In Britain I understand you can highly customize a car; in Spain not at all, unless you want it for out of road exhibitions.

I wonder about the non-Anglo-Saxon counties (& provinces) sometimes :-( In the UK and here in Ontario-io-io I can build a house or rebuild it myself including replacing all the electrics. It has to be up to code, but that's not difficult since so much is devoted to DIY and the quality parts are easily available. There is a major industry to DIY. Part of it is the publishing and video world. Outlets such as The Building Box (aka Rona, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rona,_Inc.#Companies_operating_under_the_Rona_...) run weekend courses. I grew up with this. I expect to be able to carry out my own repairs. I may get it done if it is more cost effective, as I found to be the case with doing oil changes. But over in Quebec its different. You are legally constrained. IIR to do anything more than change a light bulb you have to get a professional electrician in. Its such a nanny State (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanny_state) they don't trust you to even change fuses when one blows. I haven't been to the UK recently but there were always after market auto stores there and the ones here offer replacement bulbs for most models. I can also get LED strips to use as driving lights or simply jazz up the appearance. The code specifies minimums and maximums, such as how high the lights can be, when they have to be on, what colour. But the frame of the car is dealing with a lot of that. -- "The pains of age remind us of the wisdom we have won through our trials." -- Kate Elliott, -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/24/2015 07:28 PM, Carlos E. R. wrote:

I have not seen any six wheel car. It makes me think of American limousines, though.

Perhaps one reason is that the USA has many toll roads and bridges and they assume three axles are either you are towing a trailer or you are a commercial vehicle like a truck. They have no concept of a six wheel "car". Come to that, I don't see anything in their toll rates posted on lines that matches unicycles :-) -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/24/2015 10:40 AM, Chris Murphy wrote:

Pointing a backup program to a directory or volume should make zero difference in terms of ease. Arguably any backup program that differs in this regard, or wayward misbehaving programs that fill up all volume space are poorly designed.

Well I disagree with that! Or parts of it. In a development environment or an environment such as _open_Suse (as opposed to the Novell side) where we are more likely to download and run stuff from the "home:" section of the repositories, then the possibility of a wayward program is much higher. I recall one github derived version of a 'darktable' update that was ... wayward! Yes that affected me. That's an area where I *DO* lie on the bleeding edge and risk getting cut up. As for ease of use, well there's rsync. If I give it a simple "-x" it won't go over the file system boundary, so that nicely matches the DVDs. Except life ISN'T simple. realistically I have to give my backup programs, and that includes rsync, a long list of what not to back up, things like the caches and transient files such as /etc/mttab (but not /etc/fstab). You eventually learn that 'restoring' some files that might naively be backed up by tools such as rsync will screw your system, so you make the command line to rsync ever more complicated. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org

On 07/25/2015 12:18 PM, Aaron Digulla wrote:

Use this instead:

cd $HOME du -h --threshold=1M | sort -h

That will print a recursive list of everything that is > 1MB.

That would not work for me. I have stuff mounted under my ${HOME}. I would need to use the "-x" parameter otherwise the recursive tree-walk would tell me about large photographs and PDFs. of which I have many. But they aren't on the same filesystem. -- A: Yes. > Q: Are you sure? >> A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation. >>> Q: Why is top posting frowned upon? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse+owner@opensuse.org