One or Four?

[Robert Bonomi]

> From owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org  Sat Feb 18 01:59:53 2012
> From: Doug Hardie <bc979 at lafn.org>
> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 23:54:36 -0800
> To: Robert Bonomi <bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com>
> Cc: freebsd-questions at freebsd.org
> Subject: Re: One or Four?
>
>
> On 17 February 2012, at 23:21, Robert Bonomi wrote:
>
> >> From owner-freebsd-questions at freebsd.org  Fri Feb 17 19:56:00 2012
> >> From: Doug Hardie <bc979 at lafn.org>
> >> Date: Fri, 17 Feb 2012 17:50:44 -0800
> >> To: FreeBSD Mailing List <freebsd-questions at freebsd.org>
> >> Subject: Re: One or Four?
> >> 
> >> 
> >> On Feb 17, 2012, at 2:05 PM, Robison, Dave wrote:
> >>> We'd like a show of hands to see if folks prefer the "old" style default 
> >>> with 4 partitions and swap, or the newer iteration with 1 partition and 
> >>> swap.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> I only run servers and set them up with /, /usr, and swap.  Other partitions 
> >> are placed on other disks with typically one partition per disk.  I link /var
> >> and /tmp into /usr.
> > 
> > That last is a *BAD*IDEA*(tm).  There _are_ programs that assume that /var/tmp
> > and /usr/tmp are *different* places -- and will attempt to create 'distinct' 
> > files _with_the_same_name_ in the two diretories.
>
> I am sure you can find programs that presume anything you want.  I have never 
> seen one that does that. If I did find one, it would be easy to correct that 
> misguided thinking.

"Those who are unwilling to learn from history are doomed to repeat it" applies.

I state as a fact that I have been called in -- *more*than*once* --  to attempt
to recover data that had been trashed as a result of what was eventually
determined to be that specific issue. 

As for your claim of it being 'easy to correct that misguided thinking' -- that
is an outright lie, when one is dealing with COTS software for which one does 
not have the source-code.  There is also the 'minor' matter of establishing 
that 'that' -was- the cause of the problems.