Martin Man wrote:
> David J. Orman wrote:
> >>Alan Coopersmith wrote:
> >>>Dennis Clarke wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Was there a document at some point in history ( this is UNIX and it
> >>>>has tons of history ) called the FSSTD or was it FHS ?
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html
> >>>> ( this may be a Linux animal however )
> >>>
> >>>That's the Linux Standards Base filesystem layout, and should be
> >>>violently ignored by Solaris.
> >>
> >>Yes, I can only second that comment. The "Linux Standards Base
> >>filesystem layout" is totally braindead.
> >
> >
> > Thirded. It's terrible.
>
> Anyone having some pointers to concrete evaluation/discussion why this
> document is terrible, brainder, flawed, etc?
>
> no religion please...
My personal complaint is that they stuff everything into /usr/bin/. Unix
had some kind of "namespace" support via the elements in ${PATH} so
having package groups seperated into /usr/dt/bin/ (CDE), /usr/kde3/bin
(KDE3), /usr/xpg4/bin/ (XPG4 personality) and so on is a much cleaner
approach than stuffing everything into /usr/bin/. Same applies to
${MANPATH}&.co. There is no real way anymore to set/override/disable
things since it's now all in /usr/bin/. In my experience as an
adminstrator with many users (who all have different requirements) this
design is VERY VERY bad in real life.
----
Bye,
Roland
--
__ . . __
(o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
\__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer
/O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090
(;O/ \/ \O;)
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
