On Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:31:48 -1100 david merriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nick Rout wrote: > > On Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:47:59 +1300 > > david merriman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> Well, maybe it *is* broke, > >> > > > > In what way? > > > > I don't know. I wasn't saying that it actually is broken, just > speculating "what if it is ?". > > >> but everyone's used to the workarounds and > >> inconsistencies, and no-one else wants to rock the boat by suggesting a > >> more sensible way to do it... > >> > > > > In what way is it more sensible? Looks to me like the hierarchy under C: > > \Program\ Files (or whatever it's called). > > > > Again, I wasn't saying that it *is* more sensible, just observing that > people get used to "the way things are done", and tend to forget the > historical reasons *why* they were done that way in the first place. > Eventually, inertia takes over, and "the way things are done" becomes > "that's just the way it is, sit down and shut up" :-) . At some point, > the original reasons may no longer be relevant, and may in fact become a > hindrance, as (I think) the article inferred. > > AFAICT, The GoboLinux developers are suggesting an alternative way of > doing things which seems - from my relatively new linux user's viewpoint > - to be a reasonable and sensible way. The reasons for change given in > the article made sense to me. But then I don't have all the historical > background to refute it. > > And what's wrong with the C:\Program Files\<Program Name>\ hierarchy > anyway ? :-P <g,d&r> *shudder* > > David > > -- > Captain Burton stood at the bow of his massive sailing ship, his > weathered face resembling improperly cured leather that wouldn't even be > used to make a coat or something. >
