[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]


On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:29:11AM -0800, you wrote:
> As for Linux being fundamentally different than BSD, and it needing to be
> different in order to "be Linux," that's complete and utter crap.  

Nice maturity factor. And you accuse me of flaming?

> The /usr/local/ issue is defined by FHS.  If you don't like it because
> you feel it's too BSD, then work on changing FHS.  AFAIK, LSB is to
> comply with FHS, not vice versa (For good reason).

FHS does not specify that distributions cannot put their own software
anywhere but /usr/local. You seem to be  suggesting making the standard
far more restrictive than any I've seen--that's what I object to. I
think you'll find that many people are quite happy with distributions
putting their software into /usr/bin and leaving /usr/local for local
use. Why should they change? There is not technical issue at stake, only
personal preference. When I mentioned BSD, it was to indicate that if
you prefer a different model, you can use it. Alternatively, you could
create a linux distribution with the BSD model. For that matter, you can
go with hurd and blur the entire distinction between / and /usr. I see
no benefit to insisting that everyone follow a single model, as long as
there is an agreed-upon set of standard tools.

Mike Stone

Reply to: