David Taylor <[email protected]> wrote: >> I was expecting all the executables to be in /usr/local/bin/. Why might >> this be? Linux is not well known to me. > > Thanks to Trevor, Rob and Steve for your answers. Whilst it may be > trivial for those familiar with the OS, it's not trivial for me as I > wouldn't know the search terms to look for. I appreciate the time for > your responses. This was with Linux 3.6.11
You *what* I find confusing? Windows traditionally (well, since Windows 95 when they introduced long filenames and were _so_proud_ that those could include spaces) puts programs in "C:\Program Files". When the 64-bit version was introduced, they apparently wanted to use a different tree for 32-bit and 64-bit programs. It has some merit but generally it only is a nuisance. However, what is really a mistake is that they did not introduce a new place like "C:\Program Files 64" and kept the eixsting place for legacy programs. Now, a 32-bit program is installed in "C:\Program Files (x86)" when it is 32-bit and the platform is 64-bit. This makes it difficult to use pre-made shortcuts, have directory names in scripts, etc. (the environment variable %ProgramFiles% was similarly mistreated) And the directory where most of the system libaries are stored is still called %windir%\system32. Even on a 64-bit system. Linux uses some "64" directories, like /lib64, for things that need to be separated between 32 and 64 bit. But programs are not amongst that. _______________________________________________ questions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.ntp.org/listinfo/questions
