On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:58:23 +0200, pk wrote: > organisation and I happen to be on the side which thinks the FHS > rationalisation for /bin, /sbin, /lib is a neat one. Others thinks the > neatest solution is to put everything into one directory (whatever that > may be) and that's fine too, if there was a choice...
I'm in favour of /bin and /lib, and I see the pros and cons of /sbin and am not too bothered about how that is done. But having two (or more) of each of these is an artificial mess that is a solution to a problem that ceased to exist decades ago. > As for what Neil Bothwick said: > >According to Greg K-H, who I tend to trust, this did not come from Red > >Hat. It's just that a couple of the devs are employed by them. Others > >are not. > > Redhat are in control (maintaining or main contributor) of a whole lot > of core software: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_contributions#Upstream_Focus > So maybe it's in their (Redhats) best interest to only support their way > of doing things? Or it may be that the devs themselves are so "tight" > that they are working in this direction on their own accord. Or maybe > it's all coincidental... Red Hat employ devs working on many aspects of Linux, and we should be grateful for this (or do you prefer the Ubuntu approach of taking with little giving back?). One of the reasons Greg K-H left SUSE to work for the Linux Foundation was so that he could be completely distro-independent. AFAIK he has never worked for Red Hat. -- Neil Bothwick PCMCIA: People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
