Re: File Systems.
I speak with a lot of ISVs and with our own developers (of course).
Please rest assured that most ISVs I have spoken with EXPECT the LSB to
spepcify where their files will be safe. They expect a well defined system
- whatever it is, there must be a clear specification.
Personally, I would prefer all files that belong to a Linux distribution
to be placed under the standard /usr layout. I would like to see all third
party (ISV) files located under a single point in the file system - to me
/opt sounds fine. I would NOT like to see open source applications that
part of a Linux distribution to be placed under /opt.
>From TurboLinux's perspective I will actively support any standard we all
agree on. I hear the ISVs crying out for our leadership. Leadership
sometimes means that we have to cut the hard or unpleasant decisions. I am
not wishing to be controversial but I do look for a unanimous resolve.
My 2 cents worth!
- John H Terpstra
On Sun, 19 Mar 2000, Robert W. Current wrote:
> Erik Troan wrote:
> > > No distribution vendor is ever going to embrace this philosophy. It's
> > > completely needlessly restrictive.
> > I strongly suspect Red Hat's users would hate it if we started littering
> > /opt with things from our distribution. /usr is correct for packages that
> > come with the operating system, /opt is correct for 3rd party packages, and
> > /usr/local should be left alone for system administrator's use.
> > Let's standardize the well-accepted tenets of Linux. They've evolved for
> > a reason, 20 million people are comfortable with them, and it will speed
> > the adoption of the LSB.
> Is this Erik's stance (speaking for himself or Red Hat?), or that of the
> If it is the stance of the LSB, many (including myself) will walk
> completely away from the LSB if this is the case. That's not a threat,
> that's not a flame, that's not a discussion item.
> I am simply saying, if the LSB turns into "what's good for Red Hat is
> good for the LSB, what's bad for Red Hat is bad for the LSB," then the
> LSB is completely useless to me, I might as well go buy a $1.99 CD for
> Red Hat if I want "Linux" (in quotes). And in fact stuff I am working
> for my job and projects will not benefit, because they are focused on
> other markets, ones that don't consider Netscape, Apache, and Emacs to
> be essential parts of "Linux."
> The part where "/opt is correct for 3rd party packages" and
> "well-accepted tenets of Linux" added to "20 million people are
> comfortable with them" all just sounded like "let the Red Hat de facto
> standard reign, it's easier" IMHO. I doubt Patrick Volkerding would
> never accept putting one distributions benefits above standardization
> (even his own), the embedded market won't care for this approach, and it
> sounds like the LSB would will only address the desktops market.
> The whole issue of /opt aside, Netscape on a Red Hat CD doesn't, and
> probably never will make me believe Netscape is a base component of
> I had hoped that the LSB would benefit more than that, and be useful to
> Linux Router Project, muLinux Project, Calcaria Linux7k, CAJUN,
> DragonLinux, Trinux, LinuxCE, LinuxSH3, Linux Embedded Project, PDAs,
> device controllers, and hundreds of other projects that are taking Linux
> (apparently only "the Linux kernel" and not the above LSB definition of
> Linux) into brave new uses and markets.
> If that is the case, that's fine. I don't mind, and like I said, I
> don't think it's worth fighting over. It's just not productive to
> continue to debate this for another 4 days. I would hope that the LSB
> would make it more clear that it's really LSD (Desktop) not LSB in this
> case as to not waste others time. There are a lot of cool other
> projects out there, and I'd hate to see them waste their time on this as
> Good luck, I wish you all well. Good luck on your quest to topple
> Microsoft. I'll be happy for you if you win. It's a big big world out
> there, there are things I'd rather do than worry about world domination
> of the desktop.
> +---- CurrenTEK --- http://www.currentek.com ----+
> | "Robert W Current" <email@example.com> |
> | Founder, President of Research and Development |
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email email@example.com