On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, H. Peter Anvin wrote: > > I see that, but what is the "Linux Standard Base" about then? Is it just > > about the kernel? Obviously not. So what is that "Linux" in "Linux > > Standard Base"? IMHO it is what the LSB specifies to be called, > > recognized and treated as "Linux". And then, everything not embraced by > > that specification isn't Linux but some 3rd party application and has as > > such go to /opt if installed by a package or to /usr/local if installed > > manually by the admin. > > No distribution vendor is ever going to embrace this philosophy. It's > completely needlessly restrictive.
I strongly suspect Red Hat's users would hate it if we started littering /opt with things from our distribution. /usr is correct for packages that come with the operating system, /opt is correct for 3rd party packages, and /usr/local should be left alone for system administrator's use. Let's standardize the well-accepted tenets of Linux. They've evolved for a reason, 20 million people are comfortable with them, and it will speed the adoption of the LSB. Erik ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | "Who is John Galt?" - Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand | | | | Linux Application Development -- http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad |
