I do not understand the benefits of FHS for Unixen other than Linux. Most Unixen, including OpenBSD, are older than FHS and have their own historical constraints. What do we obtain except for switching costs if we accept FHS?
It is not we but FHS people that should explain the benefits. If the explanation is available and acceptable, we can accept FHS. Otherwise, we neet not consider FHS. Kamo Hiroyasu [Kamo is the family name and Hiroyasu the given name.] From: Jeff Licquia <[email protected]> Subject: Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) and OpenBSD Date: Mon, 09 May 2011 23:33:27 -0400 > (Sorry if this isn't the proper list for this discussion. If not, > please point me in the right direction.) > > The Linux Foundation's LSB workgroup has taken over maintenance of the > Filesystem Hierarchy Standard, and is working on a number of updates > needed since its last release in 2004. > > Despite all the "Linux" in the names above, we're wanting to make sure > that the FHS remains independent of any particular UNIX > implementation, and continues to be useful to non-Linux UNIXes. > > My question to you is: do you consider the FHS to be relevant to > current and future development of OpenBSD? If not, is this simply due > to lack of maintenance; would your interest in the FHS be greater with > more consistent updates? > > If you are interested, consider this an invitation to > participate. We've set up a mailing list, Web site, etc., and are > reviving the old bug tracker. More details can be found here: > > http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/lsb/fhs
