From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [45.79.103.53]) by inbox.vuxu.org (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id f8f5afec for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 14:48:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 8508EA1E29; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:48:33 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1959E99B; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:48:01 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b=a0wBGfG8; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id DA6719E99B; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:47:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f171.google.com (mail-qt1-f171.google.com [209.85.160.171]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 073319E998 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2018 00:47:58 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f171.google.com with SMTP id e9-v6so2997529qtp.7 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:47:57 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=sJZwKWHr5oAYw/nJYLxV9xxpauk6ypvU8WAi2aKF7pY=; b=a0wBGfG8Jw8bemUVF8GnWyr5B7rXY/fiRBZSyuV5S5Bra4HZ34nXKPxVuOQz0Z7V/A /D5+gPj20cEV+sAKwQyP39Et5uVQffN/KG7Wp/YZ39d8ywjNP322Fm06ngJuP/6GdDwx 18BlIqWqPnmVyx0JLPNzs5niWb9X+kLjBlhdXo0+xNQ0Xhyj7O+flFLDhkAmFYqCwQmO c6WeodtMpOwN43RmgylEYFUO38SnhdnEKcy7q5spqr6iJ7OyrdyqcI5naER4yDzavusm 3oI8db344cULPLQ9OPLtxHF83UjvqwMABTH59FZEY34oImiDr5O1BYBf2xzBNpKxVkqj L9YA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=sJZwKWHr5oAYw/nJYLxV9xxpauk6ypvU8WAi2aKF7pY=; b=EF5vXHw4UZfkywPW89w1feuzY46hH2EEiIxeF3MO8oHZ4qjPbM//5zzgl/wreczd6n 3WAQNEOTkygQ13RLeg0b6st+fLefUlF/Cim5arywJ8KadII/ZivMxa8XfdhDUqYtPeA9 25h3SvW8rvhKetMSVaI/Pg4eWqH1y+UhyNcjzxK7OGi+9h4qjLE8Jrcqm0iUfZtIQtNx s78jPCphc9FwGAf9BoAufVCq5wKLuo7/Rl/0kW/S2a4bHQRn8hl0HIh+xuO5um+Lgfrg +el2BpzNTSFGTIqVI4ZP6/rg9M5ITHj3f0YLXbdHSxUUVvkWJvKx1pjUHGWPktLwafqE 4Big== X-Gm-Message-State: ABuFfohoDgF97N6Xwggo7Qbpb3VX9UdrviOYmspbFUGf2zkR1sE8jo/Q RZ9OLLFGIJvFKpCJMFm3TlGarCdqUsaNu7DftSnSMQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACcGV63wfk7N68zhYIMmzSzPbzToXGNzBG8Jo/FzPlvzq5b8sug9ptArel5PxVa5/4xcpymFDqlWHgidbzCm/ymDiN8= X-Received: by 2002:ac8:602:: with SMTP id d2-v6mr8248792qth.97.1538059677074; Thu, 27 Sep 2018 07:47:57 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20180927120854.u8rei%ca6c@bitmessage.ch> In-Reply-To: <20180927120854.u8rei%ca6c@bitmessage.ch> From: Dan Cross Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2018 10:47:21 -0400 Message-ID: To: ca6c@bitmessage.ch Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000b209bd0576db6c62" Subject: Re: [TUHS] The origin of /home X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000b209bd0576db6c62 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Thu, Sep 27, 2018 at 8:11 AM C=C3=A1g wrote: > The earliest I've found to be in the FHS from '94. Are there any earlier > examples of a home directory being at /home instead of /usr/$(user)? Are > there any current Unix systems that don't use /home by default (except > OSX)? Does anybody here do it intentionally? Also, what was the > rationale of moving the directory to /home? > Naming on Unix (and derived systems) is one of those things that has always had different schools of thought applied to it. As has been pointed out, the original place for what we now refer to as "home" directories was /usr, though this may not be entirely accurate: it's my belief that PDP-7 Unix had separate directories for each user, but I don't think these were nested under a common 'usr' directory. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The original impetus for moving things around was surely space considerations on early disk devices: Not only was space limited, but filesystems couldn't span devices (in the /dev sense) and often *partition* sizes on a single volume were fixed by the driver for the underlying storage device. In such a rigidly defined world, varying conventions would necessary evolve to work around the inevitable limitations, particular in sites with lots of users like universities and production-focused corporate groups, including the degeneration of `/usr` as purely holding user directories. One can easily imagine the conversation: "we're out of room on the root filesystem and I can't install this new program in /bin..." "Hmm. Well, we've got space in /usr: create /usr/bin and we'll fix up the difference in the shell by incorporating some notion of a search path for binaries." Similarly with lib, man, and all the rest of it. It's interesting that now /usr is most often devoid of user data; the intent behind the name seems to be justified after the fact by asserting that it contains programs, libraries and other data of interest to users (as opposed to administrators). That explains why other things starting encroaching and eventually took over on /usr, but I think the provenance of "/home" specifically relates to an etymological question. At some point, the "user's directory" as denoted in /etc/passwd became known as the "home directory." If that was common vernacular by the time that `/home` came around as a convention, then it seems a logical name stemming from that usage. The more intriguing possibility from the antiquarian point of view is whether someone coined "/home" and then THAT led to the rise of the "home directory" nomenclature. man(5) on 7th Edition calls that field the user's "initial working directory." The first time I see it called "home directory" in my cursory search is in 4.3 Reno. I intentionally eschew /home on a few systems. 4.4BSD had a convention of placing user home directories in /a, /b, etc. 4.4BSD-Lite also had /var/users. Both of which I occasionally use. - Dan C. --000000000000b209bd0576db6c62 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Thu, Sep 27= , 2018 at 8:11 AM C=C3=A1g <ca6c@b= itmessage.ch> wrote:
The earliest I've found to be in the FHS from '94. Are there any ea= rlier
examples of a home directory being at /home instead of /usr/$(user)? Are there any current Unix systems that don't use /home by default (except<= br> OSX)? Does anybody here do it intentionally? Also, what was the
rationale of moving the directory to /home?

=
Naming on Unix (and derived systems) is one of those things that has a= lways had different schools of thought applied to it.

<= div>As has been pointed out, the original place for what we now refer to as= "home" directories was /usr, though this may not be entirely acc= urate: it's my belief that PDP-7 Unix had separate directories for each= user, but I don't think these were nested under a common 'usr'= directory. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. The original impetu= s for moving things around was surely space considerations on early disk de= vices: Not only was space limited, but filesystems couldn't span device= s (in the /dev sense) and often *partition* sizes on a single volume were f= ixed by the driver for the underlying storage device. In such a rigidly def= ined world, varying conventions would necessary evolve to work around the i= nevitable limitations, particular in sites with lots of users like universi= ties and production-focused corporate groups, including the degeneration of= `/usr` as purely holding user directories. One can easily imagine the conv= ersation: "we're out of room on the root filesystem and I can'= t install this new program in /bin..." "Hmm. Well, we've got = space in /usr: create /usr/bin and we'll fix up the difference in the s= hell by incorporating some notion of a search path for binaries." Simi= larly with lib, man, and all the rest of it. It's interesting that now = /usr is most often devoid of user data; the intent behind the name seems to= be justified after the fact by asserting that it contains programs, librar= ies and other data of interest to users (as opposed to administrators).

That explains why other things starting encroaching a= nd eventually took over on /usr, but I think the provenance of "/home&= quot; specifically relates to an etymological question. At some point, the = "user's directory" as=C2=A0 denoted in /etc/passwd became kno= wn as the "home directory." If that was common vernacular by the = time that `/home` came around as a convention, then it seems a logical name= stemming from that usage. The more intriguing possibility from the antiqua= rian point of view is whether someone coined "/home" and then THA= T led to the rise of the "home directory" nomenclature. man(5) on= 7th Edition calls that field the user's "initial working director= y." The first time I see it called "home directory" in my cu= rsory search is in 4.3 Reno.

I intentionally esche= w /home on a few systems. 4.4BSD had a convention of placing user home dire= ctories in /a, /b, etc. 4.4BSD-Lite also had /var/users. Both of which I oc= casionally use.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Dan = C.

--000000000000b209bd0576db6c62--