Re: tux assistant idea

On Fri, 2003-01-31 at 19:31, [email protected] wrote:
> To play the devil, and go completely on the other side, the argument could
> be made that for a desktop, the LSB, more precisely the filesystem spec 
> might even be the wrong solution.
> 
> Take the Mac for example. Its filesystem structure derives from the old NeXT,
> and for users, is way more intuitive. The appliocation structure has more
> in common with old unix (/pkg/appname/[bin/lib, etc]) than with present day
> linux systems and their preponderant usage of /usr, which is a consequence of rpm and deb, which in turn is a consequence of the mid 90's where disks were not
> too large, and repeated libraries were a no-no.

I'm confused by your statement, because the FHS promotes /opt/ and not
/usr/, which is similar to your /pkg/ example.  :-)

http://www.pathname.com/fhs/2.2/fhs-3.12.html

http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=4121

George (gk4)