On Mon, 31 May 2004 16:01:05 +0100
Colm MacCarthaigh <colm at stdlib.net> wrote:
>> You'll find /usr is a seperate filesystem on every machine I admin,
> for perfectly good reasons. But it'd not mounted read-only, and it
> sure as hell isn't mounted via NFS. I'm just questioning the
> usefulness of a read-only /usr mount, I don't think it's that useful
> at all.
Being able to get to having a read-only /usr, puts us in a position
to have a firewall ( or other 'secure' system ) that can mount all
the filesystems that it needs (ro), and run the volatile ones as
ramfs, and that can only be 'better'. Whether 'better' is of any
real use to you is up to you... for me I think it's important
enough to make sure that we continue to accept that the situation
arises and that for some it is crucial. I only have one system
with a (ro) /usr, but that's only because I have one machine
that I'm testing this on ( and it's a very thin client,
accessing the /usr via NFS ).
For the (rw) stuff, shouldn't that be in /var... why shouldn't
/usr then be (ro) (or at least the option of ro )
Maintained by the ILUG website team. The aim of Linux.ie is to
support and help commercial and private users of Linux in Ireland. You can
display ILUG news in your own webpages, read backend
information to find out how. Networking services kindly provided by HEAnet, server kindly donated by
Dell. Linux is a trademark of Linus Torvalds,
used with permission. No penguins were harmed in the production or maintenance
of this highly praised website. Looking for the
Indian Linux Users' Group? Try here. If you've read all this and aren't a lawyer: you should be!
