Re: KDE filesystem structure
On Wed, Jan 16, 2002 at 01:09:54PM +0100, Allan Sandfeld Jensen wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 January 2002 12:27, Daniel Stone wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 15, 2002 at 08:55:16PM +0000, James Thorniley wrote:
> > > I'm supported also by Mosfet, see www.mosfet.org/fss.html for an
> > > actual argument for why directory layout should be more logical.
> > You say that like it's a good thing. Mosfet's on drugs.
> It just happens that piece by Mosfet is well written. Although I cant
> see how putting kde in /opt/kde would be more logical.. If anywhere, I
> would put it in /usr/kde. Like X it is a system on its own, "A system
> within the system".
Yes. X11 was put in its own directory because it was a subsystem. And
usually, it's not any more the smallest one on todays' desktop machines.
/usr was created because a hundred years ago, UNIX machines mostly had a
very small, relatively fast, root partition containing only /bin /etc and
/boot, and all the other stuff went on a slow, large harddisk (or came over
the network).
I'll bet the majority of Debian machines that run KDE are *not* sharing
/usr over the network and have *both* / and /usr on the same class of
storage (i.e. same harddisk most of the time).
So, if you don't want /usr/kde, do it right. Get rid of the old dust. Get
rid of /usr/X11. Get rid of /usr, for chrissake! Put everything in /bin,
/sbin, /lib, and /share. And get a file system that can cope with 100,000
files in one directory (because that's what you'll have eventually), i.e.
something non-ext2-like. ReiserFS would come in handy.
But don't complain about /usr/kde while accepting /usr/X11 and /usr. That's
simply illogical.
Yes, doctor, I'll take my medicine now.
--
mfg, Jens Benecke
http://www.jensbenecke.de/ - Persönliches
http://www.hitchhikers.de/ - Europas Mitfahrzentrale (car sharing agency)
Politics is like a septic tank - all the big shits float to the top.
Reply to: