Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: Re: Deficiencies in Debian]
davit, etc al.
> Debian currently does this better than anyone else, IMO.
you may be right. i use debian on my own system because
i believe it is as rock solid a (linux) ditribution that exists and
because i like the free software ideolagy.
> Better than Redhat, better than FreeBSD. Not to say there isn't room for
> improvement, but I don't see how seperating things out is going to
> help much.
one last note regarding my perception that it is better to separate
the o.s. from the applications. in a ditributed environment where
i want to serve applications to a user community from a centralized
server, i certainly do not want to nfs export /usr/bin /usr/lib /etc, etc.
just to serve up some applications. this is much easier to do if the
application and its files reside under one directory structure. one
other benefit is in the area version control management. if i want
to or have to maintain several versions of an application, it is easier
to do if they each have their own directory structure, i.e /usr/local/foo,v1.0
/usr/local/foo,v2.0, etc. with a symlink pointing to the default version.
i also like the idea of /usr/local being the sole province of the local
machine and admin, and some other area (/opt?) being for standard
installations of 3rd party applications. as has been pointed out, there
should be no namespace collisions if you are careful, but again i believe
that it is just esier to manage if there is a clear separation of spaces.
i would like to turn this around a little bit and ask those of you that
find this an interesting topic to educate me on why you feel the
current design is best, that is integrating applications with the
rest of the base system? this is not flame bait. i am just curious.
thanks,
//daryl
--
Daryl Williams
Network Administrator mailto:daryl@sharewave.com
ShareWave, Inc. Phone: 916-939-9400 x3212
5175 Hillsdale Circle Fax: 916-939-9434
El Dorado Hills, CA. 95762Web: http://www.sharewave.com
Reply to: