On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 08:29:11AM -0800, you wrote: > As for Linux being fundamentally different than BSD, and it needing to be > different in order to "be Linux," that's complete and utter crap.
Nice maturity factor. And you accuse me of flaming? > The /usr/local/ issue is defined by FHS. If you don't like it because > you feel it's too BSD, then work on changing FHS. AFAIK, LSB is to > comply with FHS, not vice versa (For good reason). FHS does not specify that distributions cannot put their own software anywhere but /usr/local. You seem to be suggesting making the standard far more restrictive than any I've seen--that's what I object to. I think you'll find that many people are quite happy with distributions putting their software into /usr/bin and leaving /usr/local for local use. Why should they change? There is not technical issue at stake, only personal preference. When I mentioned BSD, it was to indicate that if you prefer a different model, you can use it. Alternatively, you could create a linux distribution with the BSD model. For that matter, you can go with hurd and blur the entire distinction between / and /usr. I see no benefit to insisting that everyone follow a single model, as long as there is an agreed-upon set of standard tools. -- Mike Stone
