On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 21:36, Lyvim Xaphir wrote: > On Fri, 2003-01-03 at 06:14, Michael Adams wrote: <snip> > > To be fair though, my post was a rather gestapoish letter with respect > to BSD influence, blowing off some steam on the frustrations I've had > with Slackware in the past. In all fairness, there have been quite a > few ideas taken from the BSD side and integrated into Linux as a whole. > If I remember correctly, the /proc filesystem was one such example of a > BSD rip. >
now now, is there really any need to apologize for ripping on BSD? Nonsense :-) Actually, Slack is a pretty okay system compared to a strict *BSD; *BSDs usually give me that Solaris feeling of "I'm going to spend the next two days customizing this piece of @#%$%^ into a state where I can actually begin to work with it." csh or a strict Bourne shell, utilities that don't make any assumptions for you (try useradd on Solaris sometime), the programs you want are in ports and you'll have to manually disable the built-ins that come with the OS before the ports setup will work, then the port-maintainer has made bizarre decisions in the Makefile that you'll have to go override... > By and large, tho...IMO the present Filesystem Hierarchy Standard (FHS) > is more of a System V layout with handy addons than it is anything else. > > > Of course non-standard versions will and should occur where somebody thinks > > they have a better way. Time, testing and adoption practises hopefully will > > prevail in proving this correct or not (Advertising and monetary backing > > meant VHS prevailed over Beta). > > </newbie crawls off soapbox and hides under bed> > > > > I have noticed on my short time on this list that most questions should have > > been posted <newbie> first anyway. Maybe self-assessment is a problem? :-) In my experience the attempt to segregate support lists by level of problem is generally unsuccessful, because to the person suffering the problem the level is always high/expert/wizard/whatever. Very few people can say "I don't know why this isn't working but I can distinguish that it is a common and easily solved problem." > > > > > > Here's a layout of a BSD filesystem: > > > > > > http://www.washington.edu/R870/img/BSD-dir.gif > > > > > > Layout of System V: > > > > > > http://www.washington.edu/R870/img/V4-dir.gif > > > > > > System V filesystems are very highly organized and use directory > > > structure to great advantage in categorization, which is what it's > > > supposed to be used for. For instance, Sys V /etc uses subdirs to > > > categorize configuration and initialization files. Sys V /dev > > > categorizes device files in subs also as another example. > > > > > > BSD file structures *by contrast* are not very organized. In fact BSD > > > is kind of annoying, if you want to know the truth about it. One thing > > > that used to fry my eggs was the way everything was just dumped into > > > /etc; no subs. Another was the lack of a decent comprehensive organized > > > system of initialization files. I can pretty much nutshell it by saying > > > that the most annoying thing about BSD is that it's not System V. > the rc-structure bugs me badly -- init does what rc.defaults says unless rc.config overrides it, but then rc.local is run after everything else, and all of these call more external files to do various things that are organized along some principle lost to antiquity (e.g. the various rc.inet files). -- Jack Coates Monkeynoodle: A Scientific Venture...
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com
