Re: [MLUG] need info

[Jason McIntosh <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Jan 4, 2005, at 1:49 AM, Michael wrote:

>
>> 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.

*sigh* A coworker and I were discussing this, and where binaries and 
other applications should be stored.  We both agreed, each program 
should have it's own directory.  Has anyone seen where gnome puts all 
it's libraries?  UGH.  I may like the gnome interface, but where they 
put stuff drives me nuts.

>> Why would you want to use a simple name like "/programs" when you 
>> could use "/Program Files"??  ;-)
>
> Capital letters and spaces are evil! ;)

Perhaps they were evil originally, but not so much anymore.  I'd say 
/program_files, but if we wanted something that is more descriptive, 
why not use the full name?  It doesn't hurt the system at all to do so. 
  Mac's use /Applications /System /Library /Users and other folders that 
are actually intuitively named.  Granted spaces are a little trickier 
to deal with from a command line, but not inordinately so, and 
considering the benefits of readability, I can put up with spaces.

>> 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
>
Now, there's an interesting thought, although I'd say what about 
creating a distro with everything truly separate and designed the way 
we'd like?  Call it MLUG Linux?  The Linux that makes sense?  I know 
not everyone likes Mac's on the list, but that's an example of a file 
system layout we could look at for examples.  Course, it'd be nice to 
get some input from other MLUG'ers out there.  Anyone have any other 
thoughts?
Jason

/--------------------------------------|---------------------------\
| Jason McIntosh                       | CELL: 573-424-7612        |
| Webmaster, thinker, Programmer, etc. | WORK: 573-884-3865        |
| http://poetshome.com/                |                           |
|------------------------------------------------------------------|
|"How should I know if it works?  That's what beta testers are     |
|for.  I only coded it."                                           |
|(Attributed to Linus Torvalds, somewhere in a posting)            |
\--------------------------------------|---------------------------/
GnuPG Key:  
http://poetshome.com/about/jmcintosh_mlug.missouri.edu.gpgkey


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