/usr/home vs /home (was: Re: One or Four?)

[Daniel Staal]

--As of February 17, 2012 11:46:23 PM +0100, Polytropon is alleged to have 
said:

> Well, to be honest, I never liked the "old style" default
> with /home being part of /usr. As I mentioned before, _my_
> default style for separated partitions include:
>
> 	/
> 	swap
> 	/tmp
> 	/var
> 	/usr
> 	/home
>
> In special cases, add /opt or /scratch as separate partitions
> with intendedly limited sizes.
>
> You can see that all user data is kept independently from
> the rest of the system. It can easily be switched over to
> a separate "home disk" if needed.

--As for the rest, it is mine.

I'm in agreement with you on that I like to have /home be a separate 
partition, and not under /usr.  (Of course, my current zfs system has 40 
partitions...)  Partly though I recognize that I like it because that's 
what I'm used to, and how I learned to set it up originally.  (My first 
unix experience was with OpenBSD, over 10 years ago now.)

I've never seen anything listing the main reasons for having /home under 
/usr though.  I figure there must be a decent reason why.  Would anyone 
care to enlighten me?  What are the perceived advantages?  (Particularly if 
you then make a symlink to /home.)

Just a question that's been bugging me, as I read through different FreeBSD 
docs.

Daniel T. Staal

---------------------------------------------------------------
This email copyright the author.  Unless otherwise noted, you
are expressly allowed to retransmit, quote, or otherwise use
the contents for non-commercial purposes.  This copyright will
expire 5 years after the author's death, or in 30 years,
whichever is longer, unless such a period is in excess of
local copyright law.
---------------------------------------------------------------