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

Re: File Systems.

* John H Terpstra <jht@turbolinux.com> wrote:
> Personally, I would prefer all files that belong to a Linux distribution
> to be placed under the standard /usr layout. I would like to see all third
> party (ISV) files located under a single point in the file system - to me
> /opt sounds fine. I would NOT like to see open source applications that
> part of a Linux distribution to be placed under /opt.

Part of a distribution or part of any distribution? If an open source
application (I don't see the point in making a difference between open
source and closed source BTW) is part of some distribution and is in
/usr there and is *not* part of another distribution and in /opt there,
this gets funny. If you say "Linux is what a CD-set comes with that
carries the string 'Linux' in its product name" all talk about
standardizing gets irrelevant. Or you have to say *which* open source
applications are part of a standard base OS, but then distributors still
have to agree on a base system. Avoiding to do so is avoiding LSB, IMHO.

Again, that /usr vs. /opt isn't the real problem, the real problem is
telling "base system" and "applications" apart. There are other ways to
achieve this, using /usr and /opt is just the most easy and transparent
one. One could get the impression that distributors don't have an
interest in making a difference here. ISVs do have an interest in being
able to rely on what "base system" is there; they don't want to ask
themselves "is that a part of Linux we can rely on or is that just a
part of this or that distribution?". Admins, developers and everyone in
education and training do also have this problem all day long.

> >From TurboLinux's perspective I will actively support any standard we all
> agree on. I hear the ISVs crying out for our leadership. Leadership
> sometimes means that we have to cut the hard or unpleasant decisions. I am
> not wishing to be controversial but I do look for a unanimous resolve.

Unlogical marketing-driven decisions will weaken the LSB. If LSB is
meant as a way to stick "LSB-ready!" on distribution packages, this
doesn't matter, though. If it is meant as real technical benefit, one
has to talk about such things.

I've still not seen one positive argument for not separating the base OS
from additional software. I can imagine one or two reasons for not
separating it, but these are no technical reasons. (This is not meant as
a threat, marketing has its place, too. But not in LSB). Asking
uncomfortable questions is controversial, but you can't make things go
away by just avoiding to talk about them.


Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!

Reply to: