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

Reply via email to