Tuesday, September 14, 1999, 7:22:08 PM, Michael wrote:
> You have no point. You're making much ado about nothing.
I had a point, you just couldn't comprehend it, apparently.
> The reason is that we need a place for ISV's to put software.
This was never disputed by me.
> People have been using /opt for that purpose. There's no compelling argument
> against /opt, so why change it?
My point was that there wasn't any compelling reason *for* /opt either, so
why adopt it when the current structure, apparently, would work nicely. IE,
conservatism, use what we got unless there is a good reason to use something
else. Prevents bloat all around.
> We put a lot of stuff in /usr "just because" there's a tradition for it.
I doubt that.
> Regardless of how many arguments you trump up that /usr needs a new name
> (/foo, anyone?), you'd proably be ignored because the current system works
> fine. The same goes for /opt. "Just because" it pisses off Steve Lamb
> doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it.
This isn't the issue. First off, there is a reason for /usr being called
/usr and why it is there. It wasn't arbitrary, there were reasons. /opt
appeared to be an arbitrary diversion from the established structure on a
"just because" basis because it could have fit into the current model.
However, someone *FINALLY* pointed out a very valid reason for having it on a
completely separate tree and they are right.
Funny, innit, there is a reason other than "just because" and if you,
Marek and who knows how many other people had either stated that up front or
said nothing on a subject you didn't have a good argument for a lot of this
could have been avoided.
--
Steve C. Lamb | I'm your priest, I'm your shrink, I'm your
ICQ: 5107343 | main connection to the switchboard of souls.
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
