[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:0.137 / U:8.552 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site