Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian? [was: ...])
> > 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?
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:27:36 PM, Michael wrote:
> > 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.
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 02:57:07PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> That is my point!
>
> Windows is the standard in business computing. So let's all jump
> on the standard, who's with me?
Actually, the biggest problem with Windows is that it's not a standard.
DOS was, and the MS Office is to some degree, but Windows hasn't been
very standard.
There are many parts of the system which are undocumented, for which
source is not available, and which change from release to release.
We, at least, make the source available.
--
Raul
Reply to: