default partition scheme without /home - why ?

[Valent Turkovic]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 5:31 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote:
> Brendan Conoboy wrote:
>  > Benjamin Kreuter wrote:
>  >> Perhaps we could create a new option, like "Recommended layout for
>  >> desktops," that uses a reasonable estimate of what the partition
>  >> layout should be.  If a user wants to change that, they can (and they
>  >> can always "review and modify" the partition layout), and they can
>  >> always resize later if they need to.  New users are often unsure of
>  >> what the partition layout is, and unfortunately, they often fail to
>  >> read the install guide.
>  >
>  > People can always resize / later and add a /home.  Every system needs a
>  > / but not every system needs a /home.  Is there a strong technical
>  > reason for a default /home?  Would that same reason also apply toward a
>  > separate /usr and /var and /var/tmp?  Please, lets not get nostalgic for
>  > SunOS 4 partitioning!
>
>  Most partitioning decisions are about controlling the sizes separately
>  or when you want to put different operations like the logging or
>  database files in /var and user files in /home on different physical
>  drives to eliminate head contention.  You might want to separate both of
>  those from the OS files and swap, but using different partitions on the
>  same drive (and probably LVM) just makes the seeks take longer.
>
>  --
>    Les Mikesell
>     lesmikesell at gmail.com
>

I saw few times that some users put too much stuff in their home
folder and fill their HDD until there was 0 free space, and their
machines didn't boot after that - separate /home fixes that.

I'm talking about Live CD and desktop users.

Valent.

-- 
http://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic