> Based on context, I'd say that the previous respondent meant "There > is no way that /usr would be required." It is one of the most common > directories to be put on a separate partition, right up there with > /home and /var, for two reasons: Mounting it read-only is good for > security and, since it only changes very rarely, it can be placed on > an infrequent backup cycle. (If you put /usr/local on a separate > partition and keep your installation media, you shouldn't need to > backup /usr at all. In theory, at least.) That would make more sense then. I thought for sure that years ago I read /usr shoud be on / but my memory does seem to fail me. I never understood why and onetime I installed without it and everything worked fine. I have to say that directories have always been the most confusing aspect to a linux install for me. When I was really new I never understood why some things were here and others were there. Then to make things worse if you switch dists everything changed. i.e. Patrick has always said that /opt is the standard place for optional software but everyone else seems to use /usr/local. I don't know what I would do without find :-) -- Marc A. Ohmann Digital Solutions, Inc http://ds6.net marc at ds6.net