Separate /home partition
Thierry de Coulon
tcoulon at decoulon.ch
Sat Nov 13 23:20:02 UTC 2010
On Saturday 13 November 2010 10:12:41 pm Colin Law wrote:
> > But lets all just admit it's bad systems design to not put /home on a
> > separate drive or partition.
> Why? Given the fact that one can re-install or install a different
> version over an existing one without loosing /home, whether it is a
> partition or a directory, what is the advantage of it being on a
> separate partition?
I've a good example as to "why", although it's a little old. I used to use an
Office Suite names Applixware. It came with an "installer", but you had to
start the installer from a terminal.
So what happened if you just clicked on it? Apparently nothing. Actually, the
installer tried to start it's window, but that failed, so it wrote some
information about the failure in .xsession-errors.
So far, so good, but the installer was very obstinate, so it would try again,
and again, and again.... until .xsession-errors filled all the available
space. Next time you started your computer, there was no place to write the
logs, so the graphical interface would not start, and you would be dropped at
a command line, not understanding what was going on, unable to open anything
that wanted to create a log...
case a): you have /home on a partition. You could still log in as root and
cure the problem, say with nc or so - except standard Ubuntu has no root
case b): /home is on /, so you can't start any user
I have /home on a partition, _and_ i have root :)
But given that most Ubuntu users won't have root, maybe not using a partition
for /home does not matter. I'm not sure which of both is "bad systems
"We live at a time when emotions and feelings count more than truth, an there
is a vast ignorance of science" James Lovelock
More information about the ubuntu-users