Re: File Systems.
"Robert W. Current" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> I would like to open a discussion on the merit of moving "packaged"
> userland software out of /usr/bin and to a different FHS compliant area.
This isn't part of the LSB specification. It's part of FHS.
> The reasons for this are to allow more structured and organized
> standards of systems administration, similar to those found in some of
> the BSD flavors. Hopefully, this can be done without making Linux into
> a BSD system.
> Although I understand that the de facto standard for some of the larger
> Linux distributions uses /usr/bin as the default location for software,
> I feel that /usr/bin growing to several G of software is a real problem
> point for system administration. Furthermore, the convention is not
> completely standardized, shown by the use of /usr/local by distributions
> such as Slackware.
I don't believe Slackware is either FSSTND or FHS compliant.
/usr/local is only for local system administrators. FHS is *very*
clear about that.
> I feel that this issue would be best addressed by people with long term
> experience in system administration, instead of people speaking on
> behalf of de facto standards imposed by Linux distributions. This will
> allow an intelligent discussion of a potentially useful default
> "exportable" location, as well as a good feel for what essentially
> useful tools should go in /usr/bin, and where "local system only" but
> not "essential" files, scripts, and applications should be placed.
This malarkey about "imposition" against system administrators is
getting on my nerves. Until recently, my full-time job was as a
system administrator at Transmeta. When I arrived here we had about
fifty Linux machines. Now we have at least five or six hundred (and
There are other sysadmins who are here and there are more than a few
who have worked on the FHS. In fact, I'd wager that sysadmins had
more input over the shape of the FHS than distributions, mostly
because they're the ones who worked on it.