* Steve Lamb said: > > 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! Huh? /opt IS a standard, and yet you opt (sic!) against it? So what IS your point anyway? > Windows is the standard in business computing. So let's all jump on the > standard, who's with me? That's irrelevant. Chose better example. > 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. New? Is 20 years *new* in your book? marek
Attachment:
pgpqP8V_aSbCc.pgp
Description: PGP signature