Re: [MLUG] need info

[Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

> How true!  It is a bizarre naming convention, but I guess we are stuck 
> with it.  It isn't Linux's fault, of course, because these names work 
> this way all over the UNIX world as well (Solaris, AIX, HPUX, Irix, 
> etc.). Linux inherited the problem from UNIX.  Of course, you wouldn't 
> really want to change the names now because it would cause more 
> problems than it would solve.

It really shouldn't make much of a difference. Most programs can easily 
install their files in alternate directories. It's only things like 
newbie-scripts and commercial programs that wouldn't handle it well. 
Anything that uses autoconf or something comparable, or distro-packaged 
files, shouldn't have a problem with it.

> Why would you want to use a simple name like "/programs" when you 
> could use "/Program Files"??  ;-) 

Capital letters and spaces are evil! ;)

> More seriously, I think /bin is a pretty good name, but /usr/bin was 
> not a good choice.

bin is fine but usr is confussing. I'd probably name bin exec or 
launchers though. Also I'd create the great sin of not installing all 
programs in master directories. I'd put each program in it's own 
directory and use symbolic links to put the files into /launchers, 
/documentation, /libraries, etc. I'd probably put /bin and /sbin in 
/system/launchers or something like that. /var would have to be renamed 
/data probably.

Maybe I shold create an alternate LSB-type standard document just for 
the heck of it. ;)

-- 
Michael <EMAIL:PROTECTED>
http://kavlon.org

_______________________________________________
members mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/members