4 ms·
Because there's this "never touch a running system" fear, deeply rooted in our industry. The whole "move fast and break things" is a big lie, because you know
by IloveHN84 7y ago
Because there's this "never touch a running system" fear, deeply rooted in our industry.
The whole "move fast and break things" is a big lie, because you know that in that way, the system works, newer changes will break countless systems/scripts/etc
- al_form2000 7y agoAlso because doing the same thing over and over again "[because X for X in (consistency, security, esthetics, whatchamacallit)]" grows old fast - and by the time it's been fixed and running again, X is no longer there, or it's been totallty twisted out of the intended shape.
- nailer 7y agoYou are both correct. There is a risk of change. There is a risk of stasis.
- Crinus 7y agoI think the latter is a much lesser risk, assuming the "works" in "if it works" is indeed correct. After all, sure, /usr has a funny history, but in practice it doesn't really bother anyone.
- nailer 7y agoThat could be the case. One example of the cost of stasis: the / vs /usr requirement in the FHS might stop or complicate future technical possibilities that use the filesystem (packaging systems, distros, copy on write snapshots etc) from being possible. Sure it's a low cost in this instance, but there's always a cost.
- im3w1l 7y agoIt's one more thing people have to learn. For that reason it imposes an ongoing cost.