[lkml]   [2004]   [Oct]   [27]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
    SubjectRe: The naming wars continue...
    Denis Vlasenko wrote:
    > On Wednesday 27 October 2004 07:21, H. Peter Anvin wrote:
    >>Tonnerre wrote:
    >>>On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 02:43:54PM +0300, Denis Vlasenko wrote:
    >>>>Having /usr/XnnRmm was a mistake in the first place.
    >>>BSD has /X11R6, whilst I'd agree that /opt/xorg is probably a lot more
    >>>appropriate. If you want I can take this discussion back to the X.Org
    >>>folks again, but I don't think it's actually going to change anything.
    >>/opt/X (or /usr/X) is really what it probably should be.
    > Why there is any distinction between, say, gcc and X?
    > KDE and Midnight Commander? etc... Why some of them go
    > to /opt while others are spread across dozen of dirs?
    > This seems to be inconsistent to me.

    At one time Sun had the convention that things in /usr could be mounted
    ro on multiple machines. That worked, it predates Linux so Linux was the
    o/s which chose to go another way, and it covered the base things in a

    That actually seems like a good way to split a networked environment,
    with /bin and /sbin having just enough to get the system up and mount
    /usr. I can't speak to why that is being done differently now.

    I guess someone was nervous about mounting a local /usr/local on a
    (possibly) network mounted /usr and theu /opt, but that's a guess on my
    part as well.

    -bill davidsen (
    "The secret to procrastination is to put things off until the
    last possible moment - but no longer" -me
    To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
    the body of a message to
    More majordomo info at
    Please read the FAQ at

     \ /
      Last update: 2005-03-22 14:07    [W:0.026 / U:44.752 seconds]
    ©2003-2017 Jasper Spaans. hosted at Digital OceanAdvertise on this site