<html><head><style type="text/css"><!-- DIV {margin:0px;} --></style></head><body><div style="font-family:'times new roman', 'new york', times, serif;font-size:12pt"><div><br></div><div>A quick thanks for all the comments and insights, the issue is more or less resolved for the time being. I bit the bullet and used the gparted live CD to increase the root partition to 20gb. I found a listing somewhere that canonical says the <u>recommended minimum</u> is 8GB, and though I didn't double check/verify the information, I thought I was skirting uncomfortably close to it; and I was having difficulty seeing reasonable to ways to shrink it much further then that. True, there's a certain amount of risk in moving/resizing partitions, but I've been looking for an excuse to graduate from Ubuntu to one of the more advanced distros anyway.</div><div><br></div><div>Bean</div><div style="font-family:times new roman, new york, times,
serif;font-size:12pt"><br><div style="font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:13px"><font size="2" face="Tahoma"><hr size="1"><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">From:</span></b> Jon 'maddog' Hall <maddog@li.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">To:</span></b> CLUE's mailing list <clue@cluedenver.org><br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Sent:</span></b> Sun, March 20, 2011 6:39:20 PM<br><b><span style="font-weight: bold;">Subject:</span></b> Re: [clue] seeking advice cleaning up root<br></font><br>
Ahem,<br><br>I will not comment on the issue of using symbolic links, but I do not<br>think I can let this statement slide by:<br><br>>Good programmers do not. They take the time to learn enough about the<br>>OS to write the most optimal code available.<br><br>"Most optimal code" is in the eye of the beholder. Often the trade-off<br>in saving machine cycles is overwhelmed by the human time lost in doing<br>the optimization.<br><br>I will be the first person to state that a good programmer should know<br>how a compiler generates code, and may even alter their code so a<br>particular compiler (gcc for instance) will generate more optimal code.<br>It is one of the reasons why I despair over computer science departments<br>that do not teach machine and assembler language. I do not expect<br>people to spend much of their coding career writing assembler, but they<br>should understand the trade offs of the computer
architectures.<br><br>However, if we were to all generate "most optimal code" (meaning most<br>efficient code) all the time, then we probably would not get much done,<br>and probably we should be ignoring the operating system and writing to<br>the bare metal.<br><br>>(For the record: Most of us who write in bash, perl, php, python, ruby<br>>etc are *scripters* and not programmers.)<br><br>I consider "scripters" to be "programmers", and particularly if it is a<br>one-off job. The shell programs in Unix have been fairly optimized over<br>the years to give good performance, and the programmer who recognizes<br>the trade-offs between writing, testing and debugging new "C" code to do<br>a task versus writing a simple script that does the same thing (to me)<br>is the sign of a great programmer, not just a "good" one.<br><br>Warmest regards,<br><br>maddog<br><br>_______________________________________________<br>clue mailing list<br><a
ymailto="mailto:clue@cluedenver.org" href="mailto:clue@cluedenver.org">clue@cluedenver.org</a><br><span><a target="_blank" href="http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue">http://cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue</a></span><br></div></div><div style="position:fixed"></div>
</div></body></html>