Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:27:36 PM, Michael wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 01:49:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
>> So why /opt and not /usr/opt with the possibility of /usr/local/opt?
> Because unlike opt and local, there really isn't a difference between
> /opt and /usr/opt -- except that one's a standard. Why not replace /home
> with /users or make clocks run counterclockwise or redefine the meter?
> Same reason -- we need a standard, arbitrary or not.
That is my point!
Windows is the standard in business computing. So let's all jump on the
standard, who's with me?
*Steve looks around and sees a decided lack of people willing to flock to
the 'standard OS'*
Well, so much for standards *just* for standards sake. Standards need a
decent reason and I don't feel a new top level directory "just because" is a
good enough reason.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Reply to: