> 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