On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:47:35PM +0100, Andrew Suffield wrote: > On Wed, May 08, 2002 at 03:50:11PM +0200, Jeroen Dekkers wrote: > > GNU/Hurd has /usr. It's only a symlink *by default*, but that doesn't > > matter. The /usr directory was invented with a good reason. We throw > > it away with a good reason, we can do the things /usr was invented for > > better using shadowfs. > > > > > IOW, the fact that others have it too is not a reason that you should do > > > the same, I'd think. > > > > For compatibility, it is. > > The irony of those two paragraphs in such close proximity has caused > me to snarf all over my monitor. GNU/Hurd tries to be compatible with most standards and already existing (free) systems. The /usr symlink is compatible with the FHS and GNU coding standards and AFAIK works with all software without changes. We try to be revolutionary while keeping compatibility. Could you explain the irony? To me, it looks like you are saying "The Hurd is bad but I don't have any arguments for it". Maybe that's because you also say such things on IRC, but I give you the possibility to explain yourself this time (instead of ignoring you). Jeroen Dekkers -- Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org IRC: jeroen@openprojects
Attachment:
pgp9cnqCe5PT1.pgp
Description: PGP signature