On 3/21/06, Darren J Moffat <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Dennis Clarke wrote:
> > (1) Is there a UNIX standard ? ( this is just yes or no )
>
> no, because there are no UNIX standards. There are X/Open standards
> and IETF standards and SVR4 ABI requirements etc etc etc.
Sort of a question about "does a zebra have black stripes or white
stripes" because in either case there it stands looking at you. I
always "felt" that there are "UNIX standard" ways of doing things. I
guess I could say there are "X/Open ways of doing things" but people
will stare blankly at me. More so than usual I mean :-)
>
> > (2) What is the UNIX standard?
>
> > (3) Do we respect that standard ? ( Is this a yes or no ? )
>
> I think what you are really getting at is the /opt, /etc/opt,
> /var/opt unbundled software layout from SRV4.
Yes Sir. That is what I am thinking. My writing often lacks the
ability to convey my thoughts regardless of the verbosity.
> They keyword there
> is "unbundled". The stuff in /usr/sfw is NOT unbundled it is
> bundled and part of the operating system. The SRV4 spec didn't
> cover "where to place stuff we don't want in the default path because we
> can't depend on it not chaning in a patch and we don't want customers to
> depend on it but we ourselves can choose to depend on it if we want to
> and sometimes do but have "contracts" in place for change control even
> then.", hence /usr/sfw. Which we know know was a bad idea.
Its behind us now.
I wonder at the "wos". As in s28s_hw4wos_05a, s9x_u6wos_08a or
s10_74L2a and most recently s10s_u1wos_19a. I still don't know why
the wos rev was missing in /etc/release of S10 GA but thats a nit.
Once something is in the "wos" then thats is it. It is part of the
operating system. The concept of "core" operating system is a matter
for discussion but the "wos" is the whole thing right ?
> BTW the FHS is practically a total rip off of SRV4 and Solaris did,
> especially evident in the "share" directories some that that Sun (IIRC)
> created for saving diskspace on servers hosting diskless clients of
> mixed architectures.
I will go even further and say that Linux is a total rip off of the
UNIX world. If that were not the case then why do we have a ls
command in Linux? Why not a "dir" like in DOS or OS/2 ? Its just not
innovative. Cute. But not innovative.
My version of innovation is the project Oxygen at MIT [1]. But I digress.
Dennis Clarke
[1] see http://www.oxygen.lcs.mit.edu/Overview.html
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
