On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 16:00:49 -0600 Nate Duehr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Mike Williams wrote: > > > I whole hartedly agree with your comments, and those of Caleb. > > If gentoo were to just blindly follow the FHS, or anyone with anything for > > that matter, things wouldn't change for the better. > > So the model of "follow the FHS and then work to change the FHS itself" > wouldn't work just as easily? > > The reason the standard never catches on? I think people just love > "being different". You already see it in the replies here. People > honestly (but wrongly) believe that where the files are is better in > Gentoo than in anything else -- when really, Gentoo's system is no > better or worse than any of the other major distros. > And the reason for 'wrongly' is? I think people don't mind being different for good reasons. > I will say this, though -- it's easier to join a clique that ignores the > standards, than to work towards a true consensus by following the > standard and trying to change it from within. No! I would say that almost the reverse is true! The group promulgating the FHS is a small clique attempting to enforce its narrow view of linux (based pretty much on Redhat) without caring for or solicting input from other groups (such as gentoo). I've never seen any "call for papers" or invitation for input on anything. It's simply: we've crafted "the" standard, and the rest of you can like it or lump it. > > Very very few people are truly interested in broad standards because > most people can't think broadly enough to imagine how useful such > standards would be. > If you are going to craft a broad standard, you need broad input in order to come up with a good standard. A true consensus would be just that: a consensus of all concerned parties. -- Collins Richey - Denver Area if you fill your heart with regrets of yesterday and the worries of tomorrow, you have no today to be thankful for. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
