Re: pet hate: different versions of same app

> Lawrence MacIntyre wrote:

> The problem is that you then have a PATH environment variable 
> containing an entry for hundreds of directories or you have symbolic 
> links to thousands of files in /usr/bin.  I think that the Linux way 
> is cleaner.=20

So your $PATH gets a bit longer. No big deal, I reckon. As for having
thousands of links in /usr/bin, I already have thousands of _files_ in
there. If the entries in /usr/bin are just links, and the targets are
grouped in some kind of logical way (/opt/app, /usr/local/app,
whatever), is this not a feature?

I must beg to differ with your opinion that the Linux way is "cleaner".
My /usr/bin contains the Gimp, mkfifo, make, various Gnome stuff, etc,
etc ,etc. I could accept "simple", but "clean" seems unlikely. What's
more, this simplicity comes at a price.

Having separate directories for apps isn't that hard, and seems well
worth it to me, hence my confusion/annoyance...


> On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 10:50, Peter McCool wrote:
> > Say I want to run Postgres 6.5 and
> > 7: 6.5 for production apps and 7
> > for
> > testing.
> > =20
> > Most distros of my acquaintance
> > (RedHat, Debian, Slackware,
> > Mandrake)
> > make this a total nightmare by
> > putting binaries for most
> > everything in
> > /usr/bin.
> > =20
> > The old-skool approach of
> > /usr/local/app lets you do this in
> > a semi-sane
> > way. C'mon, my RH9 box has 1700
> > files in /usr/bin. Madness!
> > =20
> > Most of the commercial Unices of my
> > acquaintance have addressed this in
> > some way. I'm curious why Linux
> > hasn't...
> > =20
> > Peter
> =20
> =20
> Oasis Communications corporate logo
>=20
--=20
    Lawrence MacIntyre     865.574.8696     [email protected]
               Oak Ridge National Laboratory
High Performance Information Infrastructure Technology Group