1 |
On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
2 |
> On 07/18/2012 04:10 AM, Michał Górny wrote: |
3 |
>> On Tue, 17 Jul 2012 23:54:16 -0400 |
4 |
>> Richard Yao <ryao@g.o> wrote: |
5 |
|
6 |
[snip] |
7 |
|
8 |
>>> The difference is simple. You put stuff into /sbin when you do not |
9 |
>>> want regular users to be able to select it via tab completion by |
10 |
>>> default. |
11 |
>> |
12 |
>> Now put that definition into my cold logic brain. |
13 |
> |
14 |
> That was meant as a joke, although the irony is that it is true. |
15 |
|
16 |
So, you are rationalizing a posteriori an original irrational decision. |
17 |
|
18 |
Understanding the bin, sbin, usr/bin , usr/sbin split: |
19 |
http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html |
20 |
|
21 |
"The /bin vs /usr/bin split (and all the others) is an artifact of |
22 |
this, a 1970's implementation detail that got carried forward for |
23 |
decades by bureaucrats who never question _why_ they're doing things. |
24 |
It stopped making any sense before Linux was ever invented, for |
25 |
multiple reasons" |
26 |
|
27 |
I don't mind the merge of /bin, /usr/bin, /sbin and /usr/sbin; |
28 |
moreover, I want an even more radical change: |
29 |
|
30 |
/usr -> /System |
31 |
/home -> /Users |
32 |
/etc -> /Config |
33 |
|
34 |
Why should we care about ancient filesystems that didn't supported |
35 |
long paths, and therefore we got stuck with /usr since we didn't |
36 |
wanted to waste another *single* character to make it /user? |
37 |
|
38 |
Let that silly legacy stuff die. Keep symbolic links to the old |
39 |
directories for compatibility reasons, if you want to (modern software |
40 |
should not need it anyhow), and move on. Remember /usr/X11R6? We kept |
41 |
a /usr/X11R6 -> /usr link for years. Do you miss it? |
42 |
|
43 |
I surely not. Regards. |
44 |
-- |
45 |
Canek Peláez Valdés |
46 |
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación |
47 |
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México |