EWWW!
Thank you for that education, Dennis. I did not realize those
requirements. YUCK!
Having most experience with COL, which puts it in /opt, I have seldom had
the chance to experience the difference. But there is definitely
something much more clean and flexible about the /opt
People spent more time playing games on desktops than doing serious
business. Do we need DirectX and super-intelligent GUI for a business
desktop? Definitely no. I frankly don't know wehther they were expecting
a capable desktop for business users or game console for home users.
Virutally all
And what would a single 'unified' linux desktop solve? I *HATE* KDE with
a passion. I will never willingly use it again. So, how can you create 1
desktop to serve the needs of everyone? Multiple desktops are not the
problem.
On Fri, 21 Jun 2002, m.w.chang wrote:
People spent more time
Agreed.
The purpose shouldn't be to dictate what you run, but to make sure whatever
you choose to run is installed the same way across distros.
It would help greatly, if a distro has kde for example, they would install
it the same as everyone else.
If there's an argument against that, beyond
Ok, perhaps. But how hard is it to say pick one, any one, and go with it.
It's a Jihad because people make it so, not because of some compelling
technical reason. Let's just settle it by making a new directory called
/jihad and put everything there. Arguing tastes great less filling gets
us
begin Michael Hipp's quote:
| Ok, perhaps. But how hard is it to say pick one, any one, and go
| with it. It's a Jihad because people make it so, not because of
| some compelling technical reason.
but, you see, there *is* a compelling technical reason. putting it in
/usr makes life very
So put it in /opt. Or put it in /foo or /dep. Just put it somewhere and put
it there every time. I'm not arguing for a *particular* solution. Just
*one* solution.
Is there somewhere a compelling argument against standardizing such things.
I'm willing to be educated.
Michael
On Friday 21
Perhaps I need a little educating. What is the reason that putting KDE in
/opt makes life any easier? There's /usr, /usr/local, and /opt, and it
seems like everyone picks one and sticks with it, but I don't immediately
see the reason that /opt is any better than /usr. Perhaps I missed it
begin Matthew Carpenter's quote:
| Perhaps I need a little educating. What is the reason that putting
| KDE in /opt makes life any easier?
for this we must consult the fhs. it specifies that when kde is put
into /usr or /usr/local, then the files must be spread out over that
directory.
While I agree w/ Lonni in principle (its about choice and multiple desktops can
serve the needs of differing markets IMHO), and don't hate KDE I want to add
that not *all* desktop users are gamers. I beg to differ in a BIG way. For
example I have worked for 2 different companies (with THOUSANDS
Does this mean IBM is becoming less enthusiastic about Linux. Anybody hear
more of this?
Michael
http://www.bm-soft.com/~bm/archives/200206/msg00090.html
===
WARNING: This e-mail has been altered by MIMEDefang.
On Thu, 20 Jun 2002 21:11:59 -0500
begin Michael Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] spewed forth:
Does this mean IBM is becoming less enthusiastic about Linux. Anybody
hear more of this?
Michael
http://www.bm-soft.com/~bm/archives/200206/msg00090.html
I suspect this means IBM just isn't
I suspect it is totally a business (translated profit) decision. The money
right now is in large systems, where they can sell their database, WebSphere
system, and hardware.
I personally feel that it will all come full circle eventually. Many, if not
all Linux companies are hurting, and
13 matches
Mail list logo
