Emile van Bergen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, 23 May 2002, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> > The FHS always talks about "commands" not "executables". A Hurd server is > > not a "command" in the sense and spirit of the FHS. > > Neither is a window manager. If you look at sections "3.10 /sbin: > System binaries (binaries once kept in /etc)" and 4.2, where it says > "Binaries that are not needed in single-user mode", you'll see that it > uses commands and binaries almost interchangably. Actually, a window manager *is* a command. I used to always start mine as a command until I started using Gnome. And even there, it is a command still, and once and a while I invoke it as one. > Also, on any Unix-like system, the only difference between a command and > a program is the PATH environment variable. No... a command is a program that you use from the shell. > So far, I just haven't been able to see much *conceptual* difference > between a program passing an open Mach port to a child (the translator) > and a program passing an open fd to a pipe to a child (the filter). > Sorry. It may just be me though. It's your lack of understanding and knowledge of the Hurd. No big surprise there! What amazes me is that you think you're competent to try and solve, let alone understand design issues without actually understanding the design. > Allright, allright. But now the thread is already this long, it would > have been nice if people would have gained *any* insight in the Hurd's > concepts (of which the uniqueness is overstated regularly IMHO), or made > *any* productive suggestion for a more *general* FHS amendment, also > looking at the upcoming *BSD ports. But never mind. Let's indeed end it. They could, um, well, bother reading the design docs. That would give that insight *way* better than a flame war ever could. Thomas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
