In a message dated: Sun, 06 Aug 2000 21:22:44 EDT
Benjamin Scott said:
>On Sun, 6 Aug 2000, Tom Rauschenbach wrote:
>> Where do savvy system admins put the binaries ...
>
> Where the package manager puts them, generally. Then we complain about the
>packager endlessly. ;-)
ROTFLMAO :) This was truly quite funny, and how true!
> Seriously, while (like most things Linux, or even Unix) there is no one
>standard, there are general guidelines. Here's a quick rundown (pardon me if
>this is review for you):
[long but excellent desciption snipped]
Ben,
I just wanted to say, "Great Job"(TM). This was truly a great description
of where things "should/usually" go. IMO, this is a "keeper" piece of mail
that should probably be archived some Linux/Unix FAQ somewhere.
Thanks for the time and the effort spend typing this, I surely hope future
newbies (and/or others with the same questions) get a chance to read this
e-mail and understand more about "The Unix Philosophy" from it.
Thanks again!
Seeya,
Paul
----
"I always explain our company via interpretive dance.
I meet lots of interesting people that way."
Niall Kavanagh, 10 April, 2000
If you're not having fun, you're not doing it right!
P.S.
> /usr/local (and {bin,sbin} under it) is for "programs local to the site".
>This usually means whatever software has been installed by the local admin(s),
>separate from the distro provider.
Here's where you'll likely receive debate from people like my ignorant and
often argumentative colleague ;)
You are quite correct in saying that "/usr/local" is meant to be "local to the
site". However, historically speaking, "the site" was often a "main/
mini-frame" type system to which most users connected to via terminal sessions.
This has since lead to the debate of whether, because "site" was synonymous
with "the single machine at the site", we should now extend "site" to mean each
physical machine having it's own /usr/local; or, does "site" truly mean site,
and therefore, /usr/local should truly be a "site-wide" filesystem, NFS
mounted by each physical machine.
My personal belief is the latter, my esteemed partner unfortunately believes
in the former argument. Though this point has led to much vocal debate
between us, I maintain that just because, in a large enterprise environment,
each user has their own physical system which is a complete and separate Unix
system unto itself, does not mean we, the sysadmins, should treat them that
way. Rather, treating them as if they were not complete and separate, and
thereby centralizing significant amounts of data in a site-wide /usr/local
NFS mounted file-system makes perfect sense, since anyone can now go to any
system and expect to see the same data in the same location.
(Disclaimer: The fact that this can easily be accomplished by using a
different location to NFS mount this centralized filesystem on is completely
beside the point for the scope of this argument. This debate is truly about
pointlessly debating the semantics of the situation! :)
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
