On Tue, Apr 12, 2011 at 3:44 PM, Kent A. Reed <knbr...@erols.com> wrote:
> On 4/12/2011 4:09 PM, Igor Chudov wrote: > > I used Linux since 1995. I do not personally see the point of having /usr > > mounted separately. > > > > Igor > Igor: > > Some of us came to Linux with prior experience using Unix. To quote a > footnote from the Wikipedia article on the Filesystem Hierarchy Standard > for Linux, > > "Historically and strictly according to the standard, /usr/local/ is for > data that must be stored on the local host (as opposed to /usr/, which > may be mounted across a network)" > > Most of my Unix boxes at NIST shared a multitude of directories like > /usr/ via nfs. > > I believe in the principle of "least surprise". If "Linux is not Unix" > then it should say explicitly how it isn't. > > The way I see it, /usr is for files given by the distribution, and /usr/local is for local stuff that was compiled locally. This is how I always perceived it. But I see your point also. i ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Forrester Wave Report - Recovery time is now measured in hours and minutes not days. Key insights are discussed in the 2010 Forrester Wave Report as part of an in-depth evaluation of disaster recovery service providers. Forrester found the best-in-class provider in terms of services and vision. Read this report now! http://p.sf.net/sfu/ibm-webcastpromo _______________________________________________ Emc-users mailing list Emc-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/emc-users
