"In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:"
>
> You're also almost as good as stating that one cannot
> backup /etc, toss in a spare drive, do the install off a local
> NFS/FTP mount (less than 2 hours by a long shot) throw /etc
> back in (no need for a tape even, whatta concept!) and then get
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> How are you going to get the data on to the drive without a minimum
> installation on it in the first place?
Booting in a way that lets you restore the data with out having to install the
system. What you need depends on the kind backup you have. In the most simple
Thursday, September 16, 1999, 3:23:25 AM, Marek wrote:
>> How are you going to get the data on to the drive without a minimum
>> installation on it in the first place?
> Geez (that's your favorite expression, ain't it?) - you really don't know
> what backups are for.
I know what they are f
* Steve Lamb said:
> > or /usr/opt, you are implicitly violating the license, since computer Baz
> > has the same /usr tree as Bar. But, when opt is at /opt, it is not shared
> > and such hassles can be avoided (of course, it can be even more easily
> > avoided by staying away from non-free softwar
* Sven LUTHER said:
> > > taken over by most linux distribs these days. on my sun, i have a /opt
> > > but no
> > > /usr/local for example.
> > Correct. Linux distros are generally a mixture of SystemV and BSD standards
> > - see the bootup init methods, for one. /opt is a good thing from the SV
>>>Paul Slootman wrote:
> especially strange there (besides the fact that he uses X-Face, which I
> thought had died out :-)
I must have misse the first mail, and I have never seen amy problem
exect that my filters for repying on some QP mails sometimes gets wrong
and add nice looking Swedish ch
* Steve Lamb said:
> Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:29:30 PM, Anders wrote:
> > Then can you tell me how your three steps are easyer and faster them our
> > one step?
>
> How are you going to get the data on to the drive without a minimum
> installation on it in the first place?
Geez (that'
On Wed 15 Sep 1999, Philip Hands wrote:
>
> Is anyone else seeing all this header drivel in everything that Anders
> mails, or have I got something in my gnus setup totally screwed ?
>
> The scattering of 's in the Subject seem somewhat suspicious to me.
Actually, I can't find any Subject in the
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 04:30:30PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> * Sven LUTHER said:
>
> > > > > How do you know I don't do just that, via symlinks? I bet you'd
> > > > > never have
> > > > > guessed I have /usr/src/linux symlinked to /sys
> > > >
> > > > OK, now argue it as a standard fo
Good god, Jon is even reading Tom Christianson wrong. Tom said to
integrate responses after the quoted text, whether in whole or in part,
so that it reads like a conversation.
And since Jon is such a big fan of announcing his additions to his kill
file (like anybody else really gives a shit) *plon
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 3:56:02 PM, Richard wrote:
> Did you *ever* even *attempt* to read the FHS? It took me less time
> for me to find this than it did for you to whine about not having a
> specific cite.
Did anyone else who were quoting from it? All of them did the same thing
I di
Steve Lamb writes ("Re: /opt/ again (was Re: FreeBSD-like approach for Debian?
[was: ...])"):
>Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 11:25:11 PM, Jakob wrote:
>> software. FHS states that /usr must be sharable over a network - e.g. if I
>
>Thank you for finally providing a v
Hi,
Is anyone else seeing all this header drivel in everything that Anders
mails, or have I got something in my gnus setup totally screwed ?
The scattering of 's in the Subject seem somewhat suspicious to me.
Cheers, Phil.
Anders Arnholm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In-reply-to: morpheus's mes
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 1:44:38 PM, Raul wrote:
> Then perhaps this entire discussion should be moved to the fhs-discuss
> list.
Operative word was, well, was. Discussion over. Someone finally read
what I wrote and provided what I asked for instead of trying to beat me into
submission
> Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:20:43 PM, Anders wrote:
> > As long as you don't count the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard".
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:32:13PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Considering this thread was a criticism of the inclusion of it into that
> standard, one cannot count th
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:37:41 PM, Anders wrote:
> > Thank you for finally providing a very good reason for a new top level
> > domain. About the only thing missing, IMHO, is a specific cite from the
> FHS
> > (section number would be good) but I'll take your word for it.
> On pa
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 11:25:11 PM, Jakob wrote:
> > software. FHS states that /usr must be sharable over a network - e.g. if I
>
> Thank you for finally providing a very good reason for a new top
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:29:30 PM, Anders wrote:
> Then can you tell me how your three steps are easyer and faster them our
> one step?
How are you going to get the data on to the drive without a minimum
installation on it in the first place?
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 12:20:43 PM, Anders wrote:
Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Nor is it the case with /opt.
> As long as you don't count the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard".
Considering this thread was a criticism of the inclusion of it into that
standard, one cannot count that. I
I am doing this message wrong to prove a point. First of, Johnny, my name
is Steve, not Steven. Johann, I would appreciate it if you used it correctly.
Secondly, what you are doing is what I am doing here. Reply first, and then
quoting. If you had read the FAQ in its entirety you would have
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Now, *YOU* tell *ME* how that translates into reinstalling, configuring
> and restoring all data.
Then can you tell me how your three steps are easyer and faster them our
one step? Restoring everything from one tape in one moment usally gets
done faster (as long as we
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Nor is it the case with /opt.
As long as you don't count the "Filesystem Hierarchy Standard".
/ Balp
Good god. Steven is even quoting Tom Christianson wrong. Tom said not to
stick the WHOLE message at the bottom, where it doesn't provide context.
What I have been doing falls in the realm of "providing context".
On Wed, 15 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> Goody, I get to use this. Thank Tom Ch
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Sure I can. Now, *YOU* tell *ME* why you can't see the similarities
> between /usr/local and /usr/opt in the above scenerio. I mean, if /usr is
If it wan't for that the rest of the Unix univere in about 20 years ago
started to use the /opt mhiracy for this you should
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 7:22:08 PM, Michael wrote:
> You have no point. You're making much ado about nothing.
I had a point, you just couldn't comprehend it, apparently.
> The reason is that we need a place for ISV's to put software.
This was never disputed by me.
> People have bee
Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 11:25:11 PM, Jakob wrote:
> software. FHS states that /usr must be sharable over a network - e.g. if I
> should not be an issue there, either. However, the license for application
> Foo may state that it
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 9:40:22 AM, Branden wrote:
> On the contrary, you seem to believe your opinion should carry at least
> equal weight to all the precedent and tradition that conflicts with it.
No, I have asked for and never got a valid *TECHNICAL* reason for it. It
took well over
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 7:36:37 AM, Marek wrote:
> For another time you show your ignorance.
Hardly.
> ftp is a user which CAN LOG into the system and which does log into the
> system.
For what purpose, pray tell? Why would this daemon enjoy privileges
others do not?
> majordomo
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 6:25:12 AM, Marek wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
>> Considering one can install a fairly robust system (FreeBSD, Debian) over
>> FTP/NFS in under an hour and it takes 2-3 to go through a gig of data I would
>> much rather reinstall the programs and retrieve the rela
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 6:03:47 AM, Marek wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
>> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:53:40 PM, Raul wrote:
>> > Actually, the biggest problem with Windows is that it's not a standard.
>>
>> But it is.
> Oh? Show me an RFC or anything of the kind that makes WIndows sta
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 5:49:09 AM, Marek wrote:
> Huh? /opt IS a standard, and yet you opt (sic!) against it? So what IS your
> point anyway?
Well, if you would *READ* you'd get it. Instead you just want to argue.
>> Windows is the standard in business computing. So let's all ju
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 5:45:24 AM, Marek wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
>> Again, please do not reply above. It is rude.
> No, it might be inconvenient for YOU, but it's not rude. You are rude, all
> the time.
Goody, I get to use this. Thank Tom Christiansen for this one. It was
wr
Wednesday, September 15, 1999, 4:15:52 AM, Marek wrote:
> As usually, you weren't listening. Somebody in this thread has said why it
> is good to use /opt for third-party (usually commercial) packages:
I am listening. Others aren't thinking. Let me use your example as an
example.
> /usr -
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 06:57:24AM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:12:44PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > > No, I knew what the rationale was and I don't agree with it one bit.
> > > In
> > > short, their rationale is wrong and we're repeating the mistake.
>
> > We
* Steve Lamb said:
> > > >> None of this describes one bit why it has to be a top level
> > > >> directory.
> > > > Because it fits the Unix tradition of lazy typists. Im a lazy typist.
> > > > Hear my carpal tunnel fingers cry out as they type the extra 4
> > > > characters in /usr/opt
>
* Sven LUTHER said:
> > > > How do you know I don't do just that, via symlinks? I bet you'd never
> > > > have
> > > > guessed I have /usr/src/linux symlinked to /sys
> > >
> > > OK, now argue it as a standard for everyone as /opt is.
> > /opt is a de-facto standard. By usage. By tradition.
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:43:59PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
> > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:39:46 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> > >> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:14:37 PM, Federico wrote:
> > >> > IMHO, /usr is what we (Debian) control, /usr/local is what I (the
> > >> > sysa
On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 10:12:44PM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > No, I knew what the rationale was and I don't agree with it one bit. In
> > short, their rationale is wrong and we're repeating the mistake.
> Well, I'm glad we have you around to give us the unambiguous,
> unquestionable
* Steve Lamb said:
> Considering one can install a fairly robust system (FreeBSD, Debian) over
> FTP/NFS in under an hour and it takes 2-3 to go through a gig of data I would
> much rather reinstall the programs and retrieve the relatively small data
> (/etc, btw, is data).
I can't believe wha
* Steve Lamb said:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:53:40 PM, Raul wrote:
> > Actually, the biggest problem with Windows is that it's not a standard.
>
> But it is.
Oh? Show me an RFC or anything of the kind that makes WIndows standard? The
fact that it is installed on almost every OEM equipme
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 02:45:24PM +0200, Marek Habersack wrote:
> * Steve Lamb said:
> > Again, please do not reply above. It is rude.
> No, it might be inconvenient for YOU, but it's not rude. You are rude, all
> the time.
>
> > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:34:05 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> > >
* Steve Lamb said:
> > On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 01:49:41PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >> So why /opt and not /usr/opt with the possibility of /usr/local/opt?
>
> > Because unlike opt and local, there really isn't a difference between
> > /opt and /usr/opt -- except that one's a standard. Why n
* Steve Lamb said:
> Again, please do not reply above. It is rude.
No, it might be inconvenient for YOU, but it's not rude. You are rude, all
the time.
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:34:05 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> > On Tue, 14 Sep 1999, Steve Lamb wrote:
> >> Then why /home/ftp instead of
* Steve Lamb said:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 2:39:46 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> >> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:14:37 PM, Federico wrote:
> >> > IMHO, /usr is what we (Debian) control, /usr/local is what I (the
> >> > sysadmin) control, /opt is where third-party package builders (e.g.,
> >> > Cor
* Branden Robinson said:
> On Tue, Sep 14, 1999 at 05:59:33PM -0700, Steve Lamb wrote:
> > Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 5:40:28 PM, Raul wrote:
> > > As it happens, I already pointed you at the answer to that question,
> > > you were just too lazy to take the hint. So [me being a fool], here's
> >
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 12:23:24PM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> >>>Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > beacus some pepole in the Debian comunity does not have tha same
> > > problems...
> > STOP WRITING TO -devel AND START **DOING** SOMETHING ABOUT IT *
> The day I get my key sigh by a develop
* Steve Lamb said:
> > Why is placing third-party bianary packages in /opt a bad thing?
>
> Because /opt is a duplication of an existing file structure which can
> serve the purpose more than adequately. What people are asking me is "what is
> wrong with /opt" when I am pointing out is that
>>>Anthony Towns wrote:
>
> > beacus some pepole in the Debian comunity does not have tha same
> > problems...
> STOP WRITING TO -devel AND START **DOING** SOMETHING ABOUT IT *
The day I get my key sigh by a developer and I get som exctra time. I
can contribitute something. BUT STILL
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Considering one can install a fairly robust system (FreeBSD, Debian) over
> FTP/NFS in under an hour and it takes 2-3 to go through a gig of data I would
> much rather reinstall the programs and retrieve the relatively small data
> (/etc, btw, is data).
As long at th
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Then why /home/ftp instead of /ftp?
Because ~ftp is as short as /ftp.
> Why /var/htdocs instead of /www?
Bacouase /var/htdocs is an error, the i.m.h.o. propper location is
/home/www, a.k.a. ~www
/ Balp
On Wed, Sep 15, 1999 at 10:21:57AM +0200, Anders Arnholm wrote:
> > If you like FreeBSD... *USE FREEBSD*.
> You mean that if he likes the installation and flexibility of FreeBSD
> usit, ignore rthat Debian does have someother things that are better
> beacus some pepole in the Debian comunity
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 3:14:37 PM, Federico wrote:
> > sysadmin) control, /opt is where third-party package builders (e.g.,
> > Corel, KDE, Cygnus, etc...) control.
> None of this describes one bit why it has to be a top level directory.
You may not like it, bu
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 12:32:19 PM, Jonathan wrote:
> > I hate being FORCED to do an "install" when a "copy" is just as good and
> > saves far more effort. I duplicate hundreds of FreeBSD disks every month.
> > If only Linux was so easy.
>
> If you like Free
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 1:45:46 PM, Marek wrote:
> >> Which would be for what reason?
> > When for example it is mounted on a cdrom as a live CD system. Enough?
>
> /usr/local, where you're going to keep local, custom builds of things, i
That are hopefully
>>>Steve Lamb wrote:
> domain of individuals who do not have a packaging system. Debian has a very
> strong packaging system so the separation is not needed.
Then could you please show me a way to share /usr/bin over nfs? I see
the need to install, the idea in /usr/share is that it should be
po
55 matches
Mail list logo
