Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 12:08:02 +0100 From: Hendrik Hasenbein <hhasenbe@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> To: Thomas Mueller <mueller6727@bellsouth.net> Cc: David Cornejo <dave@dogwood.com>, freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: /usr/home vs /home Message-ID: <4ECB8292.7020804@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de> In-Reply-To: <20111122103043.82377106564A@hub.freebsd.org> References: <CAFnjQbvMRey=zM_1BvjF%2Bs=2sWfYDwFoi_pB7BJiJ9aS9Ud5ag@mail.gmail.com> <20111122080542.5c993efe@zelda.sugioarto.com> <20111122103043.82377106564A@hub.freebsd.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig138ABA2D5F21C300D4956A0B Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 22.11.2011 11:30, "Thomas Mueller <mueller6727"@bellsouth.net wrote: >> In the old days home was typically a separate partition that was=20 >> mounted on /home. If you didn't have a partition the installer >> would create /usr/home and symlink /home to it. The root was also >> typically an independent partition, so it made sense not to clutter >> it up with home directories. >=20 >> Now that the default behavior is to use one big partition, the=20 >> installer defaults to /usr/home + symlink. >=20 >> I've always liked the more succinct /home and was wondering if >> there is any reason why not to delete the symlink and move home to >> / to mimic the old many partition style? >=20 >> thanks, dave c >=20 > My preference is to use the traditional /home, on a separate > partition. That way, user data can be kept safe in the case of a > major upgrading or revamping of the system. >=20 > This principle is even applicable for MS-Windows, even if the > user-data partition is not called "home". >=20 > A Linux user can run two or more distributions sharing the same /home > with each other, but not the same /home as for FreeBSD because of > different file system. >=20 > bsdinstall on FreeBSD 9.0-BETA1 changed my /home to a symlink to > /usr/home, but I changed it back to my preference. >=20 > I read that PC-BSD considers /usr/home to be correct. >=20 > I agree with Martin Sugioarto <martin@sugioarto.com> on preparing the > disks myself rather than letting the installer do it. bsdinstall > only made things more difficult for partitioning the disk, not > allowing enough space, and also bsdinstall's boot partition was > nonfunctional for me. >=20 > But I don't see any advantage to putting /, /usr, and /var on > separate partitions. This might not be an universal advantage, but it is good to keep the choice. For example / could reside on a small flash memory built-in on the mainboard. /usr and /homes are mounted from different fileservers and /var is on a usb flash drive inside the case, because / is already filled. mata ne, Hendrik --------------enig138ABA2D5F21C300D4956A0B Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7LgpYACgkQytd3dYHoMPWhowCdF7PeMHPhLzOiri2+FuITnfZE PREAoOQEccQjRTqxH+4ZOr3a3VDcWf/r =aQOw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig138ABA2D5F21C300D4956A0B--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4ECB8292.7020804>