On 2/15/02 at 9:58 AM, Michael D. Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David Douthitt wrote: > > > > On 2/14/02 at 4:36 PM, Michael D. Schleif <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > For example, /var/log is the standard residence of logfiles. > > > > Is it? Only in Linux apparently; my Unixware and HP-UX > > systems use > > /var/adm/syslog. > > I am sorry that you always miss my point. > > We are on the LEAF List Service and happen to be > discussing LEAF issues. However interesting it maybe to > discuss AIX, HP-UX, Irix, &c., these are non sequitur to > this particular discussion. Not entirely. One of the things I wanted to do with LEAF was a form of the standardization you were mentioning - except my attempt was towards a UNIX-like system. That was one of the reasons I absolutely hated giving up on ifconfig, netstat, and route.... powerful or not, 'ip' ONLY exists in Linux (can you say "non-standard"?) That's also one of the reasons that e3 starts in vi mode in Oxygen - that and the fact that I LIKE vi :-) > > > For example, the root directory (/) should be residence to > > > directories *only* or, at least, *no* ordinary nor > > > executable files -- or, should it? > > > > Many UNIXes (most?) use / as root's home directory. > > In your opinion, is that a `good' choice? But that's not the point :P I hate seeing .ssh .mail etc all spread about in / but anyway... > > Not only is standardization impossible, but the little > > variances are what makes a distribution individual and > > perhaps better than others. > > Nothing is impossible. Getting three people to agree is :-) > In fact, your dependent clause, again, is my point! We > have something in LEAF that is unique and worth defining > better. I think I see your point. > > I could list variance after variance - both within Linux > > distributions and out: > Again, what is your point in context of LEAF? What about all the differences IN LEAF projects... one's I've listed already? * glibc 2.1 vs 2.0 - and soon may include 2.2 besides. * apkg vs. lrpkg * automatic loading of packages vs. having to enter *EVERY SINGLE ONE* into lrp.conf * GNU sed 2.x vs GNU sed 3.x * ipchains vs ipfwadm vs iptables * Linux 2.2 vs 2.4 vs. 2.0 * Multivolume support (during boot) vs. NO multivolume support.... * busybox contents - I suspect Dachstein busybox is about 120k or less; Oxygen busybox is now hovering about 320k or somewhere around there - and is statically linked * Unpatched Linux kernels vs. specialized LRP patched kernels... Can every LEAF developer agree on each of these? I suspect not... > How many times need I state: ``NO, I am not advocating any > system of commandments and laws, transgression of which > invokes the ire of the greater community; rather, I > believe that it is important -- no, critical -- that I, as > LEAF user and, especially, as LEAF developer -- know what > I can expect from a small set of system constructs.'' You almost sound like you are advocating something like the last ANSI FORTH standard. The ANSI FORTH standard defined a number of "word sets". Words are like "functions" in C, but then any new "programs" are indistinguishable from the base.... Anyway, the ANSI committee defined word sets like CORE (the very minimalist most basic words....) FLOAT (floating point, normally not included in FORTH environments...) EXTENDED and others (names escape me). What if we had a LEAF "core set" which meant things like: * these commands will be included * these commands will act this way and an "extended set" which may or may not be present, but if they are, they must act the proper way and they must all be present. That's how the ANSI FORTH standard works; a compliant FORTH system can say they include the CORE set, the EXTENSION set, or whatever... > To take statements out of context does not make your > arguments stronger. You seem to have very strong feelings about this and other things. Persuasive argument must be level-headed. I still feel like one can't get three people to agree on anything. The ANSI FORTH committee was hogbound for YEARS. Alternately, the new "standard" often doesn't look like anything which is available! The ANSI FORTH and ANSI COBOL (object oriented!) went this way. Perhaps what we NEED is a test suite - a sort of minimalist "autoconf" which details what works and what doesn't... -- David Douthitt UNIX Systems Administrator HP-UX, Unixware, Linux [EMAIL PROTECTED] _______________________________________________ Leaf-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
