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

Re: File Systems.

On Thu, Mar 16, 2000 at 10:30:51PM -0500, Robert W. Current wrote:
> 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.

This is what I was getting at. You accused Dan Quinlan of trying to
force standards onto people under the mantle of the LSB, then you turn
around and push this. Don't you see the difference between specifing a
subset of software (which is the task of the LSB) and specifing a
complete set of software (which is what you're proposing)? Telling
distributers that they have to move their software out of its existing
location and into some new (as yet undecided) location is *not* within
the scope of the LSB. As I understand things, one of the original goals
of the LSB was to be inclusive, while your proposal is nothing but
exclusive--only distributions that subscribe to one way of laying out
filesystems need apply.

> 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

You really need to work on your presentation. Did you really mean to
suggest that Linux distributions are, as a rule, put together by
inexperienced people who create purely arbitrary standards?

Mike Stone

Reply to: