RE: Was the release of Debian 2.0 put on Linux Announce?
On 08/04/98 at 08:49 PM, George Bonser <grep@shorelink.com> said:
>Debian has things like pre-depends that Red Hat lacks the last time I
>looked. Also, Debian tends to "do the right thing" more often with
>regard to such things that should got into /etc or /usr/X11R6/lib where
>Red Hat and other still put them in /usr/lib. Debian is actually the
>correct way but sometimes seems unwilling to compromise over the short
>term for the sake of compatability over the long term.
This looks like you are saying Debian follows the unix standard way of
doing things and the other verisons don't. So, why change from the
correct way to a wrong way? Doesn't the wrong way make porting from
Unix to Red Had harder than Unix to Debian? If for know other reason
than it makes the developer learn two (2) file structures.
BTW, thanks for the illustrated differances between RH and Debian file
structure. I thought I was remembering file locations wrong when I
tried RH; file locations made no sense to me at all.
I may have a twisted mind, but my old DOS drives had a structure very
similar to Debian. Then again, anything is better than a registry!
George R
--
Unsubscribe? mail -s unsubscribe debian-user-request@lists.debian.org < /dev/null
Reply to: