> > FWIW, grub.cfg is deliberately in /boot, rather than putting an > autogenerated file in /etc. (/boot/grub/menu.lst had its own problems, > as a partly-autogenerated and partly-manually-maintained file - a scheme > that might almost have been designed to create bugs.)
Colin, I'd forgotten that the autogenerated GRUB 2 grub.cfg is in /boot, not /etc; I agree that this is less frustrating than if it had been in /etc. > Quite frankly: there has been no discussion among Ubuntu developers > about doing anything of the kind, and I seriously doubt that it would > ever make it onto our to-do list which has more than enough on it > already without making work for ourselves. The suggestion on this list > of moving binaries to /usr/bin hasn't been made by Ubuntu developers. > > If it ever came up as a serious prospective Ubuntu development project, > I would argue strongly against it on the grounds that the gains, if any, > would be negligible compared to the work involved and the bugs that > would be likely to be created. Simplifications here belong at higher > levels. For example, the suggestion made somewhere in this thread that > there's no good reason for Firefox to require the full path to an > executable to open a resource seems like an excellent one. It should > rarely be necessary to care about the full path to an executable at all, > never mind attempting to consolidate them all into one directory. I admit that I'm quite glad to hear all this. :-) I, for one, would welcome Firefox and all others (where feasible) not requiring full paths to executables. I wonder if this is a Windows compatibility thing that isn't fully Linux-ized? I'm sure the bug that Chris kindly pointed-out has the full scoop. I can see how this issue would be better handled on a per-application basis, than on a distribution-wide one. Thanks for your comments. Cheers! --Dane
-- Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel-discuss
