On Mon, 21 Feb 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Hey Beverly,
> What I meant by that (paths) was the proposed FSSTND. RH even publishes
> it in their manuals and then deviates from it. It is a matter of personal
> choice and from that vantage point I can understand. However, what keeps
> poeple from easily following along is reading docs about things like
> apache and trying to following their pathing structure on you RH box. In
> general it's confusing and IMHO keeps linux out of the big picture for a
> lot of software manufactures. I mean look at RH, it's like they are Linux.
> Every major app builder is announcing support for RH and not "linux".
> Subtle point but it makes an impact in the views of others.
I guess I've been using a linux/unix system for awhile that I've
always assumed people would know that there are multiple areas
to find a binary or configuration files. It is confusing for most
people who've asked me about installing new software on their
system.... heh.
I understand what you mean though... it's why I don't like
packagers like rpm or debian packages. =) No offense meant!!! I
know it makes it easier for everyone to install and upgrade their
system but it doesn't help them understand the filesystem
underneath. I know several programmers that dislike the
proposed standards and package their software in rpm and debian
packages to their personal tastes by default. It always screws
people up when their trying to look for the software.
Beverly
-----------------------------------------------------------------
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.home.com/bguill/
************
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.linuxchix.org
