On 26 Jul 2002, at 2:53pm, Kevin D. Clark wrote: > However, there used to be a time when user directories used to be > placed under /usr.
Right. From what I understand, the embryonic Unix systems were single-user machines, with a very few top level directories: /src for source, /bin for binaries, /etc for "all that system stuff", /dev for devices, and /tmp for temporary files (did I forget any?). When multi-user functions were added, the /usr directory was created for user files. When additional disks were added, /usr was also used as the mount-point. (I'm not sure which came first.) Because the /usr disk had more space than / disk, all the former to-level directories were re-created and stuff dumped there, leading to a bit of mess. It isn't that bad to have a one or two /usr/bscott directories, but on a large, multi-user system, it gets kind of ugly. > Then things changed, and everybody started using <other directories>, most > notably, /home . /sbin, /opt, and /var are other notable additions. > I guess, in short, it's a bit of convenience to have users directories all > grouped together. But are there any other reasons that I'm overlooking? /usr can be network-mounted and/or read-only with user directories under /home. The LSB says distributors *must* allow /usr to be mounted read-only. -- Ben Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author and do not | | necessarily represent the views or policy of any other person, entity or | | organization. All information is provided without warranty of any kind. | ***************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the text 'unsubscribe gnhlug' in the message body. *****************************************************************
