[TUHS] /usr separation
Grant Taylor
gtaylor at tnetconsulting.net
Thu Feb 25 03:50:03 AEST 2021
On 2/24/21 7:14 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> I wouldn't say that; I'd rather say that if you have a huge combination
> of configurations that you have to test, those configurations which
> aren't regularly tested will tend to bitrot, or have odd failures
> in various error cases. The more corners that you have, the more
> corner cases.
Fair enough.
> I would call this the "Tyrany of Gold", as in the reformulated Golden
> Rule, "The ones with the Gold, makes the Rules".
Being a fan of the golden rule, I would not make, much less use, that
derivation. I think it completely changes the meaning of the spirit
behind the golden rule.
I don't fault your logic. I just dislike where it ended up.
> GRUB doesn't care. But various system administration utilities that
> want to manage to UEFI boot menu (as distinct from the GRUB boot menu),
> they need to modify the files that are read by the UEFI firmware.
Valid distinction.
> So it's convenient if it's mounted *somewhere*. Also, even if it's not
> mounted, it's still a partition that has to be around, and one reason
> to keep it mounted is to avoid a system administrator from saying,
> "hmmm, what's this unused /dev/sda1 partition? I guess I can use it
> as an extra swap partition!"
I seem to recall hearing about a problem where a rogue rm could
accidentally wipe out part of the UEFI. Maybe it was the contents of
the /boot/efi partition. So, I'd suggest a happy medium of mounting it
Read-Only. That way it's known to be used /and/ it's protected from a
simple rogue rm. It can relatively easily be re-mounted as Read-Write
when necessary. As well as subsequently re-mounted back to Read-Only.
> Yes, in another 5 or 10 years, we can probably completely deprecate
> the MBR-based boot sequence. At which point there will be another
> series of whiners on TUHS ala the complaint that distributions are
> dropping support for i386....
I feel like we've already abandoned i386 as in 80386 (or compatible)
architecture. I think we now require Pentium (586?) or better. At some
point, we'll completely remove 32-bit support from mainstream Linux
distributions, thus requiring something from the 21st century.
> But since most TUHS posters aren't paying $$$ to enterprise
> distributions, most enterpise distro engineers are going to give
> precisely zero f*cks. But hey, if you want to volunteer to provide
> the hard work for supporting these configurations to the community
> distribution, like Debian, those distros will be happy to accept the
> volunteer help. :-)
~chuckle~
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4013 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20210224/10df8907/attachment.bin>
More information about the TUHS
mailing list