Re: File Systems.
* Erik Troan <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 20 Mar 2000, Jochem Huhmann wrote:
> > Sorry for asking back: What technical or logical reasons do distributors
> > have to insist on defining at will what is part of the base system and
> > what not? As I've said more than once, the issue actually is not where
> > the software should go to, the issue is if LSB should define a base
> > system or not.
> Why are an OS base and the contents of /usr identical?
Most systems try to separate OS base and additional software. That's one
reason for /opt and for /usr/local, isn't it?. Commercial Unix-vendors
have never had these problems like Linux, because they really are
OS-vendors, so "the system" is what they deliver.
> I don't think they are, and putting things in /usr which are not part
> of the base OS is perfectly reasonable and well-accepted in the Linux
One could do a slashdot poll to ask the community ;-) I'm quite sure
that this is not so well-accepted. Most people don't like that if they
think about it, at least that's my experience. Alone the fact that /usr
grows endlessly while installing additional applications makes that a
nightmare. You can plug in another drive to hold /opt/kde and /opt/gnome
and /opt/staroffice and so on, but this gets really nasty if all these
stuff spreads itself right into /usr. It does scale very bad.
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature to help me spread!