Re: The naming wars continue...

[Bill Davidsen]

Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> On Wednesday 27 October 2004 07:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
>
> > Tonnerre wrote:
> >
> > > Salut,
> > >
> > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 02:43:54PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Having /usr/XnnRmm was a mistake in the first place.
> > >
> > >
> > > BSD has /X11R6, whilst I'd agree that /opt/xorg is probably a lot more
> > > appropriate. If you want I can  take this discussion back to the X.Org
> > > folks again, but I don't think it's actually going to change anything.
> >
> > /opt/X (or /usr/X) is really what it probably should be.
>
>
> Why there is any distinction between, say, gcc and X?
> KDE and Midnight Commander? etc... Why some of them go
> to /opt while others are spread across dozen of dirs?
> This seems to be inconsistent to me.

At one time Sun had the convention that things in /usr could be mounted 
ro on multiple machines. That worked, it predates Linux so Linux was the 
o/s which chose to go another way, and it covered the base things in a 
system.

That actually seems like a good way to split a networked environment, 
with /bin and /sbin having just enough to get the system up and mount 
/usr. I can't speak to why that is being done differently now.

I guess someone was nervous about mounting a local /usr/local on a 
(possibly) network mounted /usr and theu /opt, but that's a guess on my 
part as well.

--
   -bill davidsen (davidsen@xxxxxxx)
"The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
 last possible moment - but no longer"  -me
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/