On Tue, Sep 23, 2003 at 06:03:26PM -0600, Collins Richey wrote: > No! I would say that almost the reverse is true! The group promulgating the > FHS is a small clique attempting to enforce its narrow view of linux (based > pretty much on Redhat) without caring for or solicting input from other groups > (such as gentoo). I've never seen any "call for papers" or invitation for input > on anything. It's simply: we've crafted "the" standard, and the rest of you can > like it or lump it.
Actually the FHS *does* calls in for papers, and when a draft is created, all
interested parties can discuss it. It is also not true that it is mostly
based on RedHat: several distributions participate in the FHS discussion,
even distributions that don't adhere to it.
I personally stand 100% behind FHS since standardisation is a Good Thing. You
still have the choice to not follow the standard if you don't mind having to
do a little more work to get FHS-compliant installs work on your system.
Without standardisation efforts like FHS and LSB we would grow away too much.
Thanks to those standardisation efforts there is interoptability between the
distributions that want to follow those standards. If you don't want to
follow it, that's your choice, but don't shoot on the distributions that do
follow it then: they will have an advantage on you regarding enterprise
environments.
Wkr,
Sven Vermeulen
--
^__^ And Larry saw that it was Good.
(oo) Sven Vermeulen
(__) http://www.gentoo.org Gentoo Documentation Project
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
