Date: Sat, 18 Feb 2012 14:47:32 +0700 From: Erich Dollansky <erich@alogreentechnologies.com> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: Daniel Staal <DStaal@usa.net>, Lars Eighner <lars@larseighner.com> Subject: Re: /usr/home vs /home (was: Re: One or Four?) Message-ID: <201202181447.32623.erich@alogreentechnologies.com> In-Reply-To: <alpine.BSF.2.00.1202172316230.11247@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc.pbz> References: <4F3ECF23.5000706@fisglobal.com> <3D08D03C85ACFBB1ABCDC5DA@mac-pro.magehandbook.com> <alpine.BSF.2.00.1202172316230.11247@abbf.6qbyyneqvnyhc.pbz>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Hi, On Saturday 18 February 2012 13:05:49 Lars Eighner wrote: > On Fri, 17 Feb 2012, Daniel Staal wrote: > > > I've never seen anything listing the main reasons for having /home under /usr > > though. I figure there must be a decent reason why. Would anyone care to > > enlighten me? What are the perceived advantages? (Particularly if you then > > make a symlink to /home.) > > There may have been a historic reason, but now it is philosophical - trying when I got my hands for the first time on a BSD system, the machine has had several 5MB hard disks. I assume that what now is called partitioning came from the need to have several disks to run a serious system. And yes, it was possible to boot and run BSD with at least 20 users on several 5MB disks. Erich
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?201202181447.32623.erich>