LinuxQuestions.org
Welcome to the most active Linux Forum on the web.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Search this Thread
Old 08-25-2012, 03:07 PM   #316
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,985

Rep: Reputation: Disabled

Quote:
Originally Posted by ruario View Post
FWIW, Patrick didn't shut out the possibility of using a similar filesystem layout on Slackware some day when I asked him about it.
If Mr. Volkerding were to decide that it is not worth the effort to maintain the original Unix file hierarchy, and that Slackware should no longer cater to users wanting to have /usr on a different partition, that is perfectly fine. I would have to find another distribution, but I suspect such a change would not affect the majority of Slackware users.

I don't have the slightest problem with distribution maintainers making decisions about the distribution they are in fact maintaining. My problem is with someone at Red Hat deciding that we should all do things their way, for questionable reasons, and then using their influence and market dominance to ram that decision down everybody's throats.

Last edited by Ser Olmy; 08-25-2012 at 03:11 PM.
 
10 members found this post helpful.
Click here to see the post LQ members have rated as the most helpful post in this thread.
Old 08-25-2012, 03:10 PM   #317
ruario
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2011
Location: Oslo, Norway
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,840

Rep: Reputation: 845Reputation: 845Reputation: 845Reputation: 845Reputation: 845Reputation: 845Reputation: 845
@Ser Olmy: A perfect response!
 
Old 08-25-2012, 03:12 PM   #318
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
If Mr. Volkerding were to decide that it is not worth the effort to maintain the original Unix file hierarchy, and that Slackware should no longer cater to users wanting to have /usr on a different partition, that is perfectly fine. I would have to find another distribution, but I suspect such a change would not affect the majority of Slackware users.

I don't have the slightest problem with distribution maintainers making decisions about the distribution they are in fact maintaining. My problem is with someone at Red Hat deciding that we should all do things their way, for questionable reasons, and then using their influence and market dominance to ram that decision down everybody's throats.
Isn't switching a distro over file system merge just a bit too extreme? I mean even if it causes you an inconvenience with the stuff you described. But ofcorse you are entitled to do what you wish to do. Its a free world.

If you are so pro Unix why not use FreeBSD instead of Linux? I would say FreeBSD is closer to Unix then Slackware would you not? You won't have to pay Solaris like fees either and everything will be much more Unix Like for you. Correct me if I am wrong?

PS: Don't get me wrong folks I am not advocating SLackware should do a /usr push. Thats up to the big man to decide. But if he did.

Last edited by Mercury305; 08-25-2012 at 03:15 PM.
 
Old 08-25-2012, 03:29 PM   #319
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,985

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury305 View Post
Isn't switching a distro over file system merge just a bit too extreme? I mean even if it causes you an inconvenience with the stuff you described.
Imagine you're running a Slackware-based server. Now imagine 30+ lxc containers on that server, each running Slackware, in order to test various versions of various types of software.

I guess I could keep all the containers in subdirectories on the same file system and use hard links. I suppose UnionFS could be used as well. But those are exactly the kind of workarounds the Unix file hierarchy was designed to prevent.
 
2 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-25-2012, 03:32 PM   #320
Didier Spaier
Senior Member
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slackware{,64}-{14.1,current} on a Lenovo Thinkpad T61 6457-4XG
Posts: 4,235

Rep: Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040Reputation: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury305 View Post
why not use FreeBSD instead of Linux?
I gathered Jonathan Swift's answer:
Quote:
Both are little-endian on x86, so why bother?
 
Old 08-25-2012, 03:35 PM   #321
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Imagine you're running a Slackware-based server. Now imagine 30+ lxc containers on that server, each running Slackware, in order to test various versions of various types of software.

I guess I could keep all the containers in subdirectories on the same file system and use hard links. I suppose UnionFS could be used as well. But those are exactly the kind of workarounds the Unix file hierarchy was designed to prevent.
Oh trust me I hate hack arounds. But thats the only way to adapt to a change or to make customized changes.
You said earlier you hate how RH forces things down ppls throats correct?

Ok, so this problem exists right?

Question is what are you going to do about it?

Don't get me wrong. I'm just logically speaking. Lets say RH changes a lot of things in an un-Unix way. Then what is there to do but to hack as long as we use Linux and they control the software developers right?

I only see 3 choices.

1- adopt what they push
2- hack around it
3- switch os's

Right? Again, correct me if I am wrong.
 
Old 08-25-2012, 04:05 PM   #322
gezley
Member
 
Registered: Sep 2009
Location: Ireland
Distribution: Slackware64, NetBSD
Posts: 499

Rep: Reputation: 208Reputation: 208Reputation: 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
In other words, this Lennart character is not and has never been a sysadmin. He has never had to provision storage, he's never had to perform a backup of a live file system, and he's obviously never even heard of libvirt or CloudStack.

Why is this man in charge of an important project at RedHat? For heaven's sake, all they do is sell support contracts for servers in large organizations!

That's the trouble with these kids who grew up in the 90s and 00s. They always know so much more than those of us who grew up in the 70s and 80s and 90s and 00s.

What age was Poettering when NetBSD and Slackware first came out? Five? Six? Seven?

But he still considers himself qualified to dismiss them as irrelevant?
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-25-2012, 05:02 PM   #323
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,985

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by gezley View Post
What age was Poettering when NetBSD and Slackware first came out? Five? Six? Seven?

But he still considers himself qualified to dismiss them as irrelevant?
<a long time ago, in a galaxy most of us are intimately familiar with>

Greybeard 1: It seems rather wasteful to have the same system files stored on literally hundreds of servers. Also, maintenance and upgrades take forever. Could we do something about that?

Greybeard 2: I'm having the same problem with diskless terminals. Storing the same OS 100 times on a server is a criminal waste of space. I've made a script that replaces identical files with hard links, but it's an ugly hack.

Greybeard 1: Moving /usr to a common location, say, a network drive, would be great. But making all our regular servers depend on BootP just isn't practical. Besides, they don't all support network boot.

Greybeard 3: How about putting the most essential binaries from /usr/sbin and /usr/bin into /sbin and /bin? That way, we boot the servers from a local drive and still save a lot of space and maintenance effort. Also, one can still do basic system maintenance and troubleshooting should the common /usr resource become unavailable. And /usr could be mirrored or put on a HA system if deemed necessary.

Greybeard 2: That seems to solve all our problems.

Greybeard 1: Agreed, and there are no obvious disadvantages. It should work for everybody. Let's do it.

<some 40 years later>

Wunderkind: Heeey, what's with all these directories cluttering up the root? Why don't we put /bin and /sbin in /usr?

Sysadmin: Well, my /usr partition is common to several systems and not on the boot drive. How is that supposed to work?

Wunderkind: Well, obviously that won't be supported anymore. Just put /usr and everything else in / and be happy.

Sysadmin: Then I will have to manage hundreds of /usr directories instead of one. I'd really like to avoid that.

Wunderkind (annoyed): Hrmph... well... you could use hard links or something... will you stop holding back progress!
 
10 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-25-2012, 06:16 PM   #324
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
The acts of the mind, wherein it exerts its power over simple ideas, are chiefly these three: 1. Combining several simple ideas into one compound one, and thus all complex ideas are made. 2. The second is bringing two ideas, whether simple or complex, together, and setting them by one another so as to take a view of them at once, without uniting them into one, by which it gets all its ideas of relations. 3. The third is separating them from all other ideas that accompany them in their real existence: this is called abstraction, and thus all its general ideas are made.

John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1690)
 
Old 08-25-2012, 09:09 PM   #325
elvis4526
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2011
Posts: 113

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Stop spraying such wrong informations. Red Hat didn't pay Lennart for systemd. Systemd was a personal project that Lennart did with some other guys by their own.

Last edited by elvis4526; 08-25-2012 at 09:15 PM.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-26-2012, 08:18 AM   #326
eloi
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2010
Posts: 201

Rep: Reputation: 50
I've used the following firewall for years
in my desktop and in server production systems.


Code:
#!/bin/sh
# DROP police firewall - Slackware.
# Copy it to /etc/rc.d/rc.firewall and change the execution bit.
# By Walter Alejandro Iglesias (roquesor.com)

[ "`whoami`" != "root" ] && echo "You must be root" && exit 126

# Put here your interface
ext=eth0
#int=wlan0

# Insert here the ports you want to OPEN separated by spaces.
# grep <service> /etc/services to know which port is asociated by
# default with the service.
tcp="22 80"
udp="22 80"


clean_rules()
{
	iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
	iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT
	iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT
	iptables -F
	iptables -X
	iptables -t nat -F
}

firewall_start()
{
	# Policies
	iptables -P INPUT DROP
	iptables -P OUTPUT DROP
	iptables -P FORWARD DROP

	# Loopback
	iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT
	iptables -A OUTPUT -o lo -j ACCEPT

	# General
	iptables -A INPUT -i $ext -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
	iptables -A OUTPUT -o $ext -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
	iptables -A FORWARD -i $ext -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT

	# NAT --------------------------------------------------------#
	# Start dnsmasq in Slackware
	#ps aux | grep -q [d]nsmasq || sh /etc/rc.d/rc.dnsmasq start

	#iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -o $ext -j MASQUERADE
	#echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward
	#iptables -A INPUT -i $int -j ACCEPT
	#iptables -A OUTPUT -o $int -j ACCEPT
	#iptables -A FORWARD -i $int -j ACCEPT
	# End NAT ----------------------------------------------------#

	# Openning desired ports
	for i in $tcp; do
		iptables -A INPUT -p tcp --dport $i -j ACCEPT
	done
	for i in $udp; do
		iptables -A INPUT -p udp --dport $i -j ACCEPT
	done

	# Allow ping
	iptables -A INPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 8 -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
	iptables -A OUTPUT -p icmp --icmp-type 0 -m state --state ESTABLISHED,RELATED -j ACCEPT
}

case "$1" in
	stop)
		clean_rules
		echo "firewall rules cleaned up"
		;;
	start|restart)
		clean_rules
		firewall_start
		echo "firewall rules applied"
		;;
	*)
		echo "Usage: $0 {start|stop|restart}"
		exit 1
		;;
esac

exit 0

Another example of rc init file


Code:
#!/bin/sh
# /etc/rc.d/rc.local_shutdown
# Cleaning tmp files at shutdown on Slackware

echo "Cleaning /tmp files."

# Clean /tmp
find /tmp -mindepth 1 -delete -name '?[^ICEX11]*'

exit 0


Troll that :-).

Last edited by eloi; 08-26-2012 at 09:41 AM.
 
Old 08-26-2012, 02:27 PM   #327
ReaperX7
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Distribution: LFS-SVN, FreeBSD 10.0
Posts: 3,174
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 812Reputation: 812Reputation: 812Reputation: 812Reputation: 812Reputation: 812Reputation: 812
When it comes to the UNIX food chain, yes Solaris is at the tip top of the ladder with what's left of SGI IRIX and HP-UX coming in second and third. OpenBSD and NetBSD are further down as are FreeBSD/PC-BSD, Illumos, Linux, Mac OS-X, and Microsoft NT-SUA production status UNIX/UNIX-like monolith, hybrid, and micro kernels. The bottom of the barrel kernels are those like MINIX, HURD, and other development only and non-production kernels that are just worked on yet not implied as realistic and practical for usage.

The filesystem structure of UNIX has always been to create a multi-system with a single system of parts for PERMISSIONS and for servers to mirror and cloud for redundancy. Directories like /home were originally designed for centralized servers to allow a structure similar and identical to Microsoft's Active Directory service.

UNIX has maintained stability through everything it has been, the file system is no different from Windows' structures.

Where UNIX has /(root), Windows has C:\Windows
Where UNIX has /usr, Windows has C:\Program Files
Where UNIX has /home, Windows has C:\users
Where UNIX has /usr/local, Windows has C:\

The point of that being, Microsoft has started to be a system with more and more UNIX like structures in it's file system because it knows how a Networked File System can operate with simplicity, keep costs down, and minimize admin workloads. So why should Linux abandon it's UNIX traditions if the biggest anti-UNIX anti-free software OS is started to mimic and clone UNIX structuring to gain a better edge? I've even now started seeing Server managed C:\Program Files that are loaded through the network unique to each user.
 
Old 08-26-2012, 02:47 PM   #328
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by ReaperX7 View Post
When it comes to the UNIX food chain, yes Solaris is at the tip top of the ladder with what's left of SGI IRIX and HP-UX coming in second and third. OpenBSD and NetBSD are further down as are FreeBSD/PC-BSD, Illumos, Linux, Mac OS-X, and Microsoft NT-SUA production status UNIX/UNIX-like monolith, hybrid, and micro kernels. The bottom of the barrel kernels are those like MINIX, HURD, and other development only and non-production kernels that are just worked on yet not implied as realistic and practical for usage.

The filesystem structure of UNIX has always been to create a multi-system with a single system of parts for PERMISSIONS and for servers to mirror and cloud for redundancy. Directories like /home were originally designed for centralized servers to allow a structure similar and identical to Microsoft's Active Directory service.

UNIX has maintained stability through everything it has been, the file system is no different from Windows' structures.

Where UNIX has /(root), Windows has C:\Windows
Where UNIX has /usr, Windows has C:\Program Files
Where UNIX has /home, Windows has C:\users
Where UNIX has /usr/local, Windows has C:\

The point of that being, Microsoft has started to be a system with more and more UNIX like structures in it's file system because it knows how a Networked File System can operate with simplicity, keep costs down, and minimize admin workloads. So why should Linux abandon it's UNIX traditions if the biggest anti-UNIX anti-free software OS is started to mimic and clone UNIX structuring to gain a better edge? I've even now started seeing Server managed C:\Program Files that are loaded through the network unique to each user.
what this have to do with /usr holding lib lib64 bin and sbin?
I honestly can't think of this as a huge problem other then lazy admins that hesitate to change their old ways/habits. What does the /usr move have to do with Unix Philosophy/Tradition?
When I organize my drawers I put the socks where they should go, where my pants where they should go and my shirts... I don't put my socks on top of the fridge. My underwear in the kitchen and call it unix philosophy.
Clothes should all go in my dresser.
Programs and their libraries should go to /usr not all over the place.
Now there used to be reasons for this back in the good ol days... But there is no reason now and even if there is the reasons are minimal for this clutter and the tradeoff is not worth it.

Last edited by Mercury305; 08-26-2012 at 02:50 PM.
 
Old 08-26-2012, 02:56 PM   #329
Ser Olmy
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2012
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,985

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mercury305 View Post
what this have to do with /usr holding lib lib64 bin and sbin?
I honestly can't think of this as a huge problem other then lazy admins that hesitate to change their old ways/habits.
Then you haven't read this thread very well, or you just don't understand the issues.

It's not my intention to appear rude, but I do believe the file hierarchy situation has been covered rather extensively by myself and others.

And let me ask you a question: Du you think that for the last 40 years, Unix was in the hands of complete doofuses who saw no value in a well-organized file hierarchy, and were so poorly mentally equipped that they simply put system files and libraries "all over the place"? And nobody were able to propose a fix for this "clutter" until you came along?

Last edited by Ser Olmy; 08-26-2012 at 02:57 PM.
 
6 members found this post helpful.
Old 08-26-2012, 03:03 PM   #330
Mercury305
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2012
Location: Rockville, MD
Distribution: CrunchBang / Ubuntu
Posts: 540

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ser Olmy View Post
Then you haven't read this thread very well, or you just don't understand the issues.

It's not my intention to appear rude, but I do believe the file hierarchy situation has been covered rather extensively by myself and others.

And let me ask you a question: Du you thing that for the last 40 years, Unix was in the hands of complete doofuses who saw no value in a well-organized file hierarchy, and were so poorly mentally equipped that they simply put system files and libraries "all over the place"? And nobody were able to propose a fix for this "clutter" until you came along?
No, but a lot of technicalities have changed. What made sense back then no longer makes sense now. The tradeoffs are no longer worth it.

So what good does the /usr move do besides clutter?

"Provide a simple way of mounting almost the entire installed operating system read-only, atomically snapshot it, or share it between multiple hosts to save maintenance and space. Instead of spreading RPM package content all over the place in the filesystem, and artificially separate /bin from /usr/bin and /lib from /usr/lib, move all content to /usr and provide only symlinks in the root filesystem.

/usr on its own filesystem provides a lot of valuable options in custom setups. For historic reasons, we split-off more and more tools from /usr and put them in /. But, advanced features in today's systems can not really bootup with an empty /usr anymore. More and more fails in subtle ways in such setups.

Instead of moving more tools to /, we today already require /usr to be mounted from inside the initramfs, to be available before the real 'init' starts. The split of the root filesystem and /usr serves no purpose in Linux anymore and only complicates or prevents simple and more flexible setups."
 
  


Closed Thread


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Informaton on systemd init system? arashi256 Linux - Newbie 1 06-04-2011 07:06 PM
LXer: openSUSE 11.4 M6 Kills HAL, Brings WebYaST, Avoids SystemD LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 01-28-2011 11:50 PM
LXer: This week at LWN: Systemd and Fedora 14 LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 09-07-2010 01:00 AM
LXer: Systemd Test Day on Tuesday 2010/09/07 LXer Syndicated Linux News 5 09-06-2010 10:52 AM
About Slackware 9.1 boot disk?? ftp://ftp.kpn.be/pub/linux/slackware/slackware-9.1-is AL3OMDAH Slackware 4 04-18-2007 09:54 AM


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:41 AM.

Main Menu
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
identi.ca: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration