Re: [tlug] Using TAR

[Josh Glover <jmglov@example.com>]

Matt Doughty wrote:
 >
> I don't think that is what he means at all. I good system should have
> a _small_ statically linked minimal required system, and it should fit
> in 64M. [...] You are so busy trying to jump Chris
> that you aren't checking your facts, and assuming that he thinks lib
> and bin are links is just poor form in general.

I agree. Chris even prefaced his remark with "classic UNIX setup" or some such 
tag. I was simply pointing out the differences between Classic UNIX(tm) and 
Modern Linux RedDrake(tm) partitioning methods. If you run RedDrake, you *have* 
to either conform to "RedHat/Mandrake excesses" or be a bit clever with your 
symlinking. ;) I agree with Chris in saying that the wise UNIX lords of times 
past were better than the modern RedDrake guys (who are after market share, to 
some extent, so they compromise a little to the ease-of-understanding (*cough* 
Windows *cough*) end of the spectrum) in general. However, when Joe User asks 
about RedDrake in specific, I'll give him the specific to RedDrake partitioning 
scheme.

[And then roy lo said]

 > Apparently, you(chris) forgot the fact that /lib and /bin are NOT links
 > from /usr in linux. (For those of you didn't know; in Unix systems such
 > as Solaris, that /bin -> /usr/bin and /lib -> /usr/lib). So, your
 > suggested 64mb is going to have problem (in a linux standard
 > installation per say)

All I have to say about this is: consider the source--there is a reason Chris 
has him killfiled! ;)

-Josh